My take on Zeitgeist: Addendum and The Venus Project. Please read!

reply to post by ProPeace77


So in your mind, anyone in authority is truth, otherwise they wouldn't be there? So tell me, was Hitler truth? There is a difference in accepting truth as authority, and authority as truth. I don't accept that authority is truth. I know that authority is nothing more than power, usually gotten from the ignorance of the masses.

If authority is truth, then when 2 authorities fight and war, which is right?

I can offer a solution, but the topic was this movie and the venus project. We mostly need to remove the leech from the monetary system. And get to money that is only issued in direct proportion to the goods being traded, and then have truly free markets, not these corporatism markets of today.

As for the tone of my posts, I am blunt. I don't care to sugarcoat everything because it makes me feel fake. I've always been brutally honest. I do not see the people and the opinions as being the same thing. The person/consciousness is always there, the opinions change.

There is a difference in your perfect utopia, and a utopia for everyone. The issue I draw against people is not so much their ideas on a good society, it's that they want to make it global, which in itself implies to force others to it. It just simply can not be a utopia under those circumstances. The only utopia we can ever have will come respect of free will, otherwise people will always raise up to object.


[edit on 10-10-2008 by badmedia]

reply to post by badmedia


Of course you can have a moneyless system. Thats just the current mind control memes. It means dropping all thoughts of money. No money. Complete equality, no bartering. Until technology frees us, grouping up and sharing work to get homes and gardens and solar and wind and evrything in place. But that work also involves creating the technology. It may take 10 years of work for the able bodies, to have vastly reduced work loads. But thats 10 years into eons of time, and for the benefit of not this generations children, but all to come. It means, I repeat, no money and everyone shares equally. No homeless,.

reply to post by lifeform


I have a problem with non Christians? I'm not even Christian, and am not just defending Christians but people of ALL faiths. I find it ironic that you send your children to a religious school and I have no faith whatsoever and we seem to be on opposite sides of this.

Says a lot about each of us as a person, no? Haha. I have a problem with non Christians -- that's rich.

ANYWAY...

So what that the article was in 2006? It still is what it is, and what it seems is that you have the option to not allow your children to have religious studies. That's the proper and correct way. Also, even though the article was written in 2006, it mentions how parents were able to opt out of religious studies for their children for a VERY long time. So... . . . . That point = completely moot.

You send your children to a religious school -- hey, that's great! I bet if you told me some of the beliefs in that school I'd disagree with mostly all of them. But it's your right to send your children to a religious school. What would the people in The Venus Project say? That you were indoctrinating your children.

Or that the people who sent their children to that school because it was their religious beliefs to do so were indoctrinating their children.

And you sent your children to a religious STATE FUNDED school? But then the state can't choose to give parents an option in a normal, regular school to send their children to religious classes? ... I really honestly don't know what you're getting at ...

It seems like the same exact thing, only on different scales. One (the regular, non religious school) is one or two classes a day -- if even that -- another (the religious school) is all day long incorporation of religion.

As for Christianity being persecuted? It would be with The Venus Project, as from what I've seen and what I took away from Zeitgeist: Addendum, and so would the Muslim religion, and the Jewish, and the many other faiths that you might or might not disagree with.

Also, I love how you hone in on how I'm upset that these children couldn't sing a "silly" Christmas carol about a mythical reindeer. I'd also care if the song was about Hare Krishna, if most parents were mad about their children not being able to sing about it in some Hindu school event.

But hone in on what you like, and be petty about it all you can. Perhaps, in some ways, that's the only way you can win a debate.

reply to post by badmedia

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by ProPeace77

 

There is a difference in your perfect utopia, and a utopia for everyone. The issue I draw against people is not so much their ideas on a good society, it's that they want to make it global, which in itself implies to force others to it. It just simply can not be a utopia under those circumstances. The only utopia we can ever have will come respect of free will, otherwise people will always raise up to object.


[edit on 10-10-2008 by badmedia]

Amen Badmedia. You are dead on completely.

Not a one line post.

[edit on 11-10-2008 by cetta]

Originally posted by mystiq
reply to post by badmedia

 

Of course you can have a moneyless system. Thats just the current mind control memes. It means dropping all thoughts of money. No money. Complete equality, no bartering. Until technology frees us, grouping up and sharing work to get homes and gardens and solar and wind and evrything in place. But that work also involves creating the technology. It may take 10 years of work for the able bodies, to have vastly reduced work loads. But thats 10 years into eons of time, and for the benefit of not this generations children, but all to come. It means, I repeat, no money and everyone shares equally. No homeless,.

But as I've already pointed out, money is just a symbol of value. Even without money, things will carry with it a value. It is a simple law called supply and demand.

There is only 1 way around it, and that is unlimited supply. Only then do things no longer have a value. Which basically means people can conjure up the things you want - Jesus style.

You can't just say it's a mindset, and that people are mind controlled and brain washed because they understand economics.

Why is the system you support called a resource based system? Because resources are the things which hold value, not money.

The problem with the money today is not the function of money in itself. It is the fact you have a group of people able to create money as they want that is the problem. Because they don't actually have any real resources, they steal the resources from the people. They use the money created to buy resources. At the expense of everyone else.

To simply say - lets get rid of money, is extremely narrow minded, and doesn't address or understand the problem.

I will give you an example. Lets say you have $100 in the economy. You own $10. You have 10% of the worlds wealth. Lets say there are 20 apples. Each apple has a value of $5. That apple is a resource, it is the apple that has actual value. Lets prove it.

Now comes the central banks. They loan out $100 more dollars into the economy at interest. Suddenly there is $200 in the economy. Now, each apple will cost $10. Because the apple was the only thing that has any value. This is inflation. When they added that money to the system, they took half your purchasing power. You still have your $10, but it will only buy 1 apple where it use to buy 2. And as the other $100 is a loan at interest, the taxpayers have to pay the interest money to, which must come out of the original value. So not only did you have your purchasing power robbed, you actually had to pay the money that stole it back - after it trickles down to you from your labor.

It's a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. It happens over and over. The people who get that new money don't have a trouble paying $10 for an apple instead of $5. But the people on fixed income, or those who worked for savings can not afford to do so. And so they must rely on the government. Who all the while just use it as an excuse to create more money, and create more people dependent on it.

But eventually the interest money gets to be so big, that the debt is much higher than can actually be paid. And as such the depression hits, and the banks buy up everything for pennies on the dollar from the collateral on the debts - debts they knew would never get paid. And then after the buy up is over, new money is created - usually in the name of war and the people work to buy that stuff back again - until the interest monster eats it all up again. A never ending cycle of legalized robbery.

This is the problem we face today. If we remove the leech from the system, things can get better. And that would be money which is only created to represent things of value, or resources as you would call it. It is never created as a loan, and the money that is created due to natural inflation can be used for services. Individuals could live tax free, as intended. The only taxes that would exist would be on corporations as they are soul-less beings. People will say you will end up paying extra for the goods because of it, the corporations won't take a loss. But then you the consumer is able to determine how they are paid. And it also promotes shopping at smaller businesses that are self-owned, as they are not corporations and do not have to pay corporate taxes. Even today corporate taxes pay for the basic parts of government.

All the while people are blaming religion for the problems. When they should be blaming the people who sold their souls, push the image instead of the teachings contained. Because all that I have said here is talked about in the bible, and to do what I've described above is called usury and money changing.

[edit on 11-10-2008 by badmedia]

reply to post by badmedia


I enjoyed reading this post, and it actually broke things down for me more. But I feel as though you're wasting your time talking to mystiq. But you have more patience than me for trying.

reply to post by badmedia

But as I've already pointed out, money is just a symbol of value. Even without money, things will carry with it a value. It is a simple law called supply and demand.

There is only 1 way around it, and that is unlimited supply. Only then do things no longer have a value. Which basically means people can conjure up the things you want - Jesus style.

You can't just say it's a mindset, and that people are mind controlled and brain washed because they understand economics.

Why is the system you support called a resource based system? Because resources are the things which hold value, not money.

You've completely ignored the notion I posited in which the population has become the object of value, and the resources are merely the tool to benefit said object. If anything, you seem to be promoting the continuation, if not the expansion of the current system by suggesting that there must be a meterial good of limited availability.

So in your mind, anyone in authority is truth, otherwise they wouldn't be there? So tell me, was Hitler truth? There is a difference in accepting truth as authority, and authority as truth. I don't accept that authority is truth. I know that authority is nothing more than power, usually gotten from the ignorance of the masses.

Here's what I said:

Because in my imagination, the truth IS the authority, and the dissenters are those who, for whatever reason, refuse to accept it. If Truth is the authority, what would you call those that refuse to accept the truth?

It interests me that you would completely skew my words around by saying

So in your mind, anyone in authority is truth

I submit to that you are attempting to dupe people into believing what you would wish, and are thus as guilty as those whom we struggle against. My facts are perfectly clear, and the only subject in my treatise that you effectively tackled was the specific question imparted to you. If you wish to have a discussion, you can't mince words. You have to tackle the argument, tear it apart with provided evidence, and suggest alternate means of acheivement. You can't just turn someone's words blatantly around and call it an argument. That's just complaining.


[edit on 11-10-2008 by ProPeace77]

Originally posted by ProPeace77
You've completely ignored the notion I posited in which the population has become the object of value, and the resources are merely the tool to benefit said object. If anything, you seem to be promoting the continuation, if not the expansion of the current system by suggesting that there must be a meterial good of limited availability.

I am not suggesting we have limited material resources, I'm telling you that is a fact you just can't ignore. It's called supply and demand. I've stated a few times that the only way to get rid of that fact is for the resources to not be limited.

It interests me that you would completely skew my words around by saying

So in your mind, anyone in authority is truth

I submit to that you are attempting to dupe people into believing what you would wish, and are thus as guilty as those whom we struggle against. My facts are perfectly clear, and the only subject in my treatise that you effectively tackled was the specific question imparted to you. If you wish to have a discussion, you can't mince words. You have to tackle the argument, tear it apart with provided evidence, and suggest alternate means of acheivement. You can't just turn someone's words blatantly around and call it an argument. That's just complaining.

Nope, trying to make the distinction between what you feel is truth, and what is authority. I mean, I personally take truth as authority. Meaning, I do what I think is true and right, and treat that as the authority over me. But that doesn't mean someone in authority is truth. As I see many authorities, past and present, which do not represent the truth.

reply to post by badmedia

Nope, trying to make the distinction between what you feel is truth, and what is authority. I mean, I personally take truth as authority. Meaning, I do what I think is true and right, and treat that as the authority over me. But that doesn't mean someone in authority is truth. As I see many authorities, past and present, which do not represent the truth.

I would be curious to know what truth you consider an authority. As for my argument, the 'truth' I infer may not be what anyone 'believe's' or 'accepts' but is the 'real' truth, as in the truth that may never be known, such as the true average of any statistic based on a population. I admit I do not know what the 'truth' is, and the 'truth' I accept is based on facts that have been interpreted and argued between various scholars. However, Truth exists. My argument is based on the presumption that at some point, empirical observation and scientific methods will advance to a point where it will be known, assuming a method isn't first found to wholly obliterate any trace of it.

I would also like to create a lexicon for this dialogue, so that we may have a common reference between each other to ensure understanding of points. Would you be interested?

reply to post by cetta


Its never a waste of time. He is thinking in the box, and that box is slavery. The example set by natives for over 10,000 years is real and nothing can sweep it away. The Venus Project minus its current hefty pricetag, for the human race that price tag must be 0.00 to participate, is the only way out for the human race.
Many know it already and villages are emerging. They're preparing for a catastrophe that may or may not occur world wide. But they also believe in this lifestyle. Only vulnerable people without alternatives can be forced into nwo, or the slavery many endure already throughout the world. But people have their numbers, and if they join up, they can beat the system. So it all means is spreading the alternative until every knows there is one. They can disagree, or lack the understanding of what is meant, but when choices have to be made, they will always have an absolute way out of slavery. The thing is it all comes down to the collective conscience. This is one of those things you have to get over your differences to participate in.

Originally posted by ProPeace77
I would be curious to know what truth you consider an authority. As for my argument, the 'truth' I infer may not be what anyone 'believe's' or 'accepts' but is the 'real' truth, as in the truth that may never be known, such as the true average of any statistic based on a population. I admit I do not know what the 'truth' is, and the 'truth' I accept is based on facts that have been interpreted and argued between various scholars. However, Truth exists. My argument is based on the presumption that at some point, empirical observation and scientific methods will advance to a point where it will be known, assuming a method isn't first found to wholly obliterate any trace of it.

I would also like to create a lexicon for this dialogue, so that we may have a common reference between each other to ensure understanding of points. Would you be interested?

The truth is - I am god, and I am arguing with myself. Meaning, we are all god(consciousness). We are all connected, and in the end there is only 1 of us. Some people call that the singularity, I just call it the reality of existence. To be in the singularity is to be in the eyes of god in it's fullest realization.

I believe all evil, sin or whatever you want to call is to infringe on another beings free will. Many laws can become of this 1 universal law, such as murder, theft etc. But at the base of those laws is this philosophy. It is something we can all understand, none of us wants our will to be imposed on.

From that 1 law, there are also economic and social systems which break that law. And that is when you are forcing your will, through government, the majority or whatever onto the other person. The limit of your free will stops when you will is imposed on others, because they you are not respecting that individuals free will. This includes communism and many other forms of totalitarian governments, as you force the persons will to be focused on the good of the community. These types of systems usually come from people who wish to impose their will on others "for their own good". Such rights are for parents and their children, not between adults.

If the system you are in favor of imposes on the free will of others, it's wrong. And the truth of the matter is communistic societies do exactly that. These are sold to foolish people who envision the society as to being the way they want, which is an illusion in itself.

However, that is not to say people can't form these things. That is part of free will. I have no problems with them, and would probably even join one if I liked how it worked. But it has to be my choice, and I have to have a way to opt out. As such, you won't be doing global implementations, but smaller communities only. Nobody should stop someone like mystic from creating communities like that. I would say stop infringing on mystics free will. But at the same time, mystic wanting to impose that society onto everyone is also imposing on peoples free will, and that is wrong too, and I will say so.

So from 1 small bit of truth, you can make many more logical truth's.

But everyone should have their own understanding. I don't think truth comes in a specific image, but in understanding. Because with understanding you can expand on the truth. I'm sure you've probably heard the proverb about the blind men and the elephant.

The reason I responded to what you said sounded like who ever is in authority = truth. As in truth will always get into positions of authority. Which I can't agree with, because people must know and understand the truth before it can happen. And in this world, that is suppressed.

Originally posted by mystiq
Its never a waste of time. He is thinking in the box, and that box is slavery. The example set by natives for over 10,000 years is real and nothing can sweep it away. The Venus Project minus its current hefty pricetag, for the human race that price tag must be 0.00 to participate, is the only way out for the human race.
Many know it already and villages are emerging. They're preparing for a catastrophe that may or may not occur world wide. But they also believe in this lifestyle. Only vulnerable people without alternatives can be forced into nwo, or the slavery many endure already throughout the world. But people have their numbers, and if they join up, they can beat the system. So it all means is spreading the alternative until every knows there is one. They can disagree, or lack the understanding of what is meant, but when choices have to be made, they will always have an absolute way out of slavery. The thing is it all comes down to the collective conscience. This is one of those things you have to get over your differences to participate in.

Exactly what do you think makes up a box? It's laws and common perceptions in society. If you are trying to get people out of the box, you would be talking about the freedoms you would be giving them, both socially and economically.

There are multiple boxes. Just because you are in a different box doesn't mean you are in a box. I mentioned the elephant parable earlier. Each blind man represents another box. And they are all stuck in their little boxes because they refuse to see things from the other perspective.

What makes a person a slave is for their labor and efforts to be stolen, or done solely for another. I look for ways to remove those who do that, and your resource system just wants to change who's in control of the resources and how they are spent. Sure, you can tell me all day long they will do good things - great. If it was all done in good ways, it would be nice. But that isn't what happens.

You totally ignore corruption. You totally ignore that people do alot of bad things while telling people it's for the good. When we have people today who do exactly that. Not once has anyone ever introduced a law, regulations or anything else we have today under the reasoning of "This is really going to screw those people over". So to tell me it's all good, isn't enough. The fact of the matter is, you are still giving away control over your own life to other people.

In this resource system, you buy into it because you like the guy in charge, and you like his ideas. Great. And then the next guy comes along, changes it all in a totally different direction. Now where are you? STUCK just like we are today. Why? Because you gave away the control to them. No different than today. You act as though the people knowingly put themselves in the place we are today. They did it because they didn't know, they thought the things would be in their best interest. And now that all the control is gone, guess what? They don't listen anymore. Big surprise. And to act like this new system is completely immune to that is intellectually dishonest. Meaning, you are purposely ignoring the flaws.

But in a truly free society, nothing would/should stop you and other like minded people from doing it. The only difference is you can't force it on everyone else. See how that works? You can do what you want, and I can do what I want. And as long as nobody is telling either of us we can't do what we want, then great. But when people start telling you that you can't do it, then I should and will stand up and tell them they don't have that right. Yet, you believe you should be able to tell me what to do, and what kind of system I must live under.

Let me ask you 1 question here. Do you understand how forcing someone to believe in the bible, and how forcing someone to not believe in the bible are the same exact thing?

[edit on 11-10-2008 by badmedia]

reply to post by badmedia


I've picked up on your apparent support for resistance to all things, or at least the option to resist.

However, has there ever been a time when you resisted something that is a fact? Is the midday cloudless sky never blue for you? Have you resisted the label 'blue' being imposed upon the concept of the color?

The truth I refer to will be just as obvious and unquestionable as the sky is blue. I may not even like it. It may go against everything in which I believe. But it is the uncorrupted, inarguable truth. It exists, and it is because it exists that people hide it. Whether in white lies, denial, or blatant falsity, it exists. It is hidden because the confrontation of real or perceived loss is too high to admit responsibility. For instance: An adultering spouse hides the activity out of fear of losing something, be it his/her family, house, car, or money, i.e. something of value. On a larger scale, conflict ensues when two or more parties disagree to a point where negotiation fails. I believe this is a result of an unwillingness to understand or tolerate the disagreement, or difference, between them. This can happen between two people while talking. This can happen between ten nations while negotiating. This result can, over time, be easily construed as inevitable, and one party may forgo diplomacy and proceed to attack another pre-emptively, or in the hopes of surprise. I would suggest that these results can be seen as forms of 'evil,' or at least misfortune, between the parties. To reiterate, understanding is, among other things, essential to positive relations, i.e. those that do not cause harm in any way, between parties.

I understand that I may not like the truth. But I'm willing to see it come to fruition for everyone so they may decide for themselves what to do with their lives, without the outside influence of any institution.

Many people do not want to face the possibility of loss, as even time can be a valued-resource, one which no one has in plentiful abundance. But I would gladly give up whatever is required to achieve a tolerant, understanding, peaceful society.

I think we should begin discussing what that society could look like. I offer that, to begin, a list should be compiled denoting agreed-upon definitions of what is considered 'right' and what is considered 'wrong.' Then that list could be negotiatively prioritized. I can already see the flaws in this method, as there might always be one who disagrees with the status of a priority, or the definition of right and wrong. Does anyone have a better suggestion? Or would we rather keep arguing about how the propositions of the Venus Project are or are not possible?

The human imagination is one of the most bountiful tools of creation in existence. Would we do well to let it continue dividing us in its varied uses?

reply to post by ProPeace77


Sure I have been wrong. But I didn't learn because someone forced me. Being wrong is part of the learning process, but not part of the "knowing" process. As Einstein once said, any fool can know, the point is to understand.

You can tell me all day long that I am in a cold temperature. I can repeat what you told me and be right. Doesn't make me intelligent, just makes me a parrot. Only when I am able to experience both hot and cold, and be free to do so can I actually understand. And when I understand, I will know the truth for myself, not because someone told it to me.

You seem to look at the variables as truth. I disagree, the equation is truth. The variables can represent many images/truth's. That goes back to the elephant and the blind men. Where each had their own bit of "truth", each were right about the piece of truth they got, but none were right about the entire truth.

Badmedia, you've noted that you would be against the 'who' in charge of a resource system which implies you would resist the process by which that 'who' was selected. The question I have for you:

What if you were that person?

Would you respect someone's right to walk away from your truth? Would you respect the right of people who disagree with you to seek your replacement?

Would those people even have that right?

So far you've been quite adept at playing the devil's advocate for being against any system which imposes itself on others forcefully, while identifying that all systems are forcefully imposed. I offer this argument as a fallacy, because it fails to consider the possibility that not all systems are forcefully imposed.

In the extremely hypothetical situation in which a system is recommended, and everyone chooses to participate, and no one ever decides to leave, although it is their option, where is the force? If the people are given the opportunity to enhance that system in a way that is, again, willingly accepted by all, even if it revolutionizes the system, where is the force?

In this situation, I argue that your force is not present, and thus, as I have conceived it, not all systems MUST be forced, and therefore, there exists a system that even you would accept within the context of your own free will.

As a sidenote, there are many things you suggest that are quite brilliant, but I sense that you are highly opposed to situations in which you are requested to give up certain privileges under the pretext of benefiting the whole, as if the whole is against you. For an example, if it can agreed upon that smoking is unhealthy, and that anyone exposed to such activity either directly or indirectly is at risk for health issues, and it becomes suggested that smoking become outlawed, and because it is agreed that smoking is unhealthy, would you give up your privilege to smoke, even if you currently do not? You have the privilege, even if you do not use it. Does that make it a right? I contend that 'rights' are the subject of legal institutions, designed to promote moral behavior. Privileges, on the other hand, are the inalienable abilities of anyone, or anything.

reply to post by ProPeace77


If I were the person in charge, I would explain to the people that the best person to make the decisions that effect your life is you. That the sole purpose of government is to insure 1 person doesn't infringe on the free will of another. Not to manage everything in everyone's lives like they are a parent.

I don't want to control people, so I have no reason to try and do so. I understand the price of freedom is giving it to everyone, even if you don't exercise that particular freedom. That when you start thinking you have the right to control others, you also in the process give someone the right to control you. Exactly as has been done to us today. When you go to control another, you lose your right to freedom.

reply to post by badmedia

That goes back to the elephant and the blind men. Where each had their own bit of "truth", each were right about the piece of truth they got, but none were right about the entire truth

I disagree with this statement. Each blind man was not right about the piece of truth they got, because the piece of truth they got led them to incorrectly associate their perceptions with previous perceptions. This is one form of stereotyping. The unquestionable truth in this case, the fabled hidden truth I have referred to many times in this forum, is an elephant. Let us hope that someone who sees the elephant will have the generosity to challenge the blind men into accepting it not as a tree, or a snake, or a rope, but as the reality of what it is. While it may have many different features, it is more than the sum of its parts.

As this tale has many different versions, it is ultimately a moral about living in harmony with those whose beliefs differ from ours. The fallacy I see in the story is that none of the blind men capitalize on the opportunity to negotiate their perspectives, and none of them attempt to experience the other's perspective. If I were to describe the door of a car as like a wall, and the seats as like cloth, and the gears as like stone, I would only be describing the traits of the car, as the blind men are describing only traits of the elephant, as we are only describing traits of the truth. A blind man will never 'see' an elephant. He must accept that it is an elephant, as he is informed. Perhaps his senses will impart to him something about the elephant that has not been perceived through sight, and add to the knowledge that composes the perception of the elephant. We may never 'see' the truth, but we must come to an agreement on what it is before we can begin to discuss its revelations. Then we can contribute to an enrich it.

This resource community isn't really about any particular guy. Project Venus just explains the possibilities really well. Michael St. Clair also explains his philosophy quite well. I'm one of those who think a disaster may eventually befall this planet, though I'm hoping not. I've spent a lifetime knowing the only kind of world that would be decent to live in, then learning a bit about native communities, and thinking that instead of the lord of the flies mentality that so many survival thread entries seem like, that a smart communal approach was the only way to go. But the Venus Project just cleared up the last of the perceptions. The key understanding this is simply that its not money or barter. Its absolute complete equality and acceptance of all people including those who are not able-bodied, and according all with equality. It would also take organization. Which I would do with a committee of people serving like jury duty for several months at a time, to a half year, and a look at how more civilized countries treat their criminals, ie. Norway.

reply to post by badmedia

That when you start thinking you have the right to control others, you also in the process give someone the right to control you. Exactly as has been done to us today. When you go to control another, you lose your right to freedom.

Then we would be in agreement that, in order to begin establishing a better society (compared to the existing model, which has been agreed to be flawed in this forum) the learned concept of control of others must be eliminated?

Originally posted by ProPeace77
I disagree with this statement. Each blind man was not right about the piece of truth they got, because the piece of truth they got led them to incorrectly associate their perceptions with previous perceptions. This is one form of stereotyping. The unquestionable truth in this case, the fabled hidden truth I have referred to many times in this forum, is an elephant. Let us hope that someone who sees the elephant will have the generosity to challenge the blind men into accepting it not as a tree, or a snake, or a rope, but as the reality of what it is. While it may have many different features, it is more than the sum of its parts.

Well, there are many truths exposed in the story. What you said was it was about letting people with different beliefs live. And that is also the point I am making.

I should be able to live under the system you want to live under.

You should be able to live under the system you want to live under.

There is a system that respect that, and then their is the global community project, which doesn't. It puts the communities above the individuals, and it will fall because the base of that community is the individuals themselves. Create a society that respects the individuals, and you have a solid community.