It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Tips & Epiphanies Collaboration Thread

page: 2
37
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 10:49 AM
I was wondering / 2+0=2 2-0=2 2divided by 0=2 what makes sense is 2x0=2 but we all know different. i think zero is equal to one,therefore 2+0=3 2-0=1 2divided by 0=2 and 2 x0=2.I havent had time to trace all the repurcussions of this theory but consider this unsolvable riddle.3 guys each put up 10 bux to split the cost of a hotel rm for a night.the manager notices the rm should only be 25 bux so he gives five to the bellboy and says go give those guys a refund with this five bux and i dont care how u split it up.still with me?ok The bellboy gives each guy a dollar and keeps the other 2. therefore each guy payed 9 dollars each right?9x3=27 plus 2 that the bellboy kept =29.wheres the lost dollar?zero=one works here what say you?

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 01:16 PM

Originally posted by telemetry

See how many will catch it 'eh?

Here is mine for the night:
"If this universe is only a projection of myself, what happens when I turn it off?"

I will be back to check on this thread... we may get some goodies

:_

T- out

Thats asuming there is a switch to turn it off. You can't think about that stuff in terms of what we " know" because we don't know everything therefore placing our views of life adn the world onto things which we can't explain is not real productive because we will always be stuck in the question and never move towards the answer/....the truth.

Not trying to come down on you because it is a very good question and one I have thought abotu myself.

[edit on 20-1-2009 by LucidDreamer85]

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 01:59 PM
While not within ATS, there is a website with freemium membership options available to researchers. It is www.MyNetResearch.com. It provides a basic free membership with project management and communication tools. The premium also provides a toolbox section with survey capability as well as literature search, etc.

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 07:27 PM

We will not trace IP's, that's a promise, a work I shall hold to.
As for the government, well just cite your sources, and/or you opinion, as opinion and they can't do much. In all honesty, they have more information then they know what to do with,so unless you mention key intimate details of a future plot, you're safe by about a margin of 95%.

- Maban

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 07:33 PM

Are we (the collective ATS) members willing to put aside our friends and foes, and venture into uncharted territories? After all, this is for the betterment... and I am all for jumping in in the spirit of exploration.

What not, its the only way Humanity is ever going to make progress.
Like the great works of Picasso and Leonardo Da Vinci, we have to start somewhere; why not here.

Alone we are all flames in the dark. But once joined our embers become one in light and reveal the paths before us."

Our unified flames can illuminate that which is unseen and unknown to us, more than any single flame in the dark.

Besides, to be a true researcher, to be a true truth seeker, means to set aside all opinion, ans to see a situation by what it truly is, the facts and only the facts.

- Maban

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 07:37 PM

Super Cavitation

Empire - Oceans Arise

I certainly see the ocean eventually dotted with sprawling cities and titans of industry. Its a quick fix solution to exponential population growth in the short term, at least until we terraform Mars.

- Maban

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 07:40 PM

On a more serious note, I arrived at an epiphany long ago that mankind is far too divided at this point for any real change to take place with the overall displeasure of the state of the world. We're worried about so many inconsequential things that we fail to see the big picture. The majority of the world lives in its own little bubble and the only thing that will save us all is if we collectively step out of that bubble. What will it take? Don't know. But I sincerely wish that mankind could throw the nonsense to the wayside and collectively agree on what is naturally right.

Thsi is indeed how we, The Shard, collectively see Humanity. This is why we do what we do in hopes our "nudging" and slowly rising awareness helps bring about anew era of Human Civilization.

- Maban

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 07:43 PM

A collaboration would be a great idea but I think that some sort of chat system would be better with the postings being recorded so ideas are not lost. This is because I think that a chat system would be best for exchanging ideas and discussing points, the threads just aren't immediate enough.

I understand the need for instant "get-ification" but this will have to do for the time being. Perhaps you all can start a movement to set up such a forum by conveying your wishes to the ATS Administrators and Owners. For the time begin I am hoping a sort of natural organization will begin to emerge out of the chaos, a natural flow of information and ideas.

- Maban

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 07:44 PM

- Maban

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 07:48 PM

That's assuming there is a switch to turn it off. You can't think about that stuff in terms of what we " know" because we don't know everything therefore placing our views of life and the world onto things which we can't explain is not real productive because we will always be stuck in the question and never move towards the answer/....the truth.

Unfortunately in life, in the universe, questions never yield truths, they only yield answers. But, even yet, some questions never even yield answers, they only yield greater and more in depth pursuits. But in the search for absolute truth, we unveil small answers, answers which shape and shift both our realities and world. Answers which can at once dramatically change our world view, and global society. There are never stupid questions, just unanswered or ignored ones.

- Maban

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 10:00 PM

Originally posted by Maban

Thsi is indeed how we, The Shard, collectively see Humanity. This is why we do what we do in hopes our "nudging" and slowly rising awareness helps bring about anew era of Human Civilization.

- Maban

I hope that wasn't too much rambling and maybe someone in your position might understand what I'm feeling/thinking. Any shards of wisdom for someone like me? Im sure I'm not the only one who struggles with this and maybe your response might be of some comfort for not just me but them too...

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 10:43 PM

There are lots of shards of wisdom to be had.
Just as there is enlightenment and truth to realize.

Where so many people go wrong is in their approach.
If people approached wisdom, enlightenment and truth
like someone mindfully collecting mushrooms that would be wise.
You see, we don't need to start from square one when collecting
mushrooms. People have been eating mushrooms for as long
as there have been people. Therefore the information on which
mushrooms are edible and which are poisonous has already been
figured out. Therefore you can study the mushroom catalog and
learn from a teacher knowledgeable about mushrooms.
Since poisonous mushrooms are so dangerous if you think
you know without learning with clarity you will wind up a skeleton.
A very dumb, foolish skeleton at that.

It is the same with wisdom, enlightenment and truth.
So many foolish people think they know without a teacher.
There are a few human beings who are knowledgeable about
enlightenment and in fact achieved enlightenment. Those that
achieved enlightenment are not going to be on the corporate
media because enlightenment brings contentment,
inner peace and corporate advertisers do not want you happy and content.
They need you to be whacked out, insecure and confused so you
will buy their pharmaceuticals, new brands of beer, soda, car, whatever.

Therefore my friend, find enlightened beings.
I'm not going to be a missionary type person and try to sell you
on one or the other. Just keep in mind that you are looking for
authentic, genuine enlightened beings. Then learn what methods
they used to get there and try to practice those methods yourself.

posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 01:04 AM

Originally posted by ImaNutter
I was kind of aware, basically accepted, that there just has to be people who thought this as well. This line of thought gives me so many questions though, perhaps you can help? Having the understanding that this is the way things are, it becomes almost depressing. I speak a lot to my brother about these kinds of things, I think he listens. He is really the only one who I feel comfortable sharing with the full extent of what I think/feel. I've tried talking to my mom (would try my dad too if he was around) and she gets that funny look in her eye and tells me I shouldn't be so cynical. I try talking to who I consider friends about things like this, and they get that same funny look in the eye. I can feel what they think, sometimes they say it, but most of the time they don't have to. It's just what I consider the 'standard' response all the time. That it's nonsense, things are fine for me, I've got my own things I need to worry about, I'd rather get tanked than consider any of this, I'd rather just complain about something I don't like than consider solutions, etc etc. It's very trying.

It is only natural, you embrace more a reality, then they care to recognize. Some simply do not wish to be bothered by "big picture" thinking because it is in a way slightly depressing, that we, humanity, possess so much potential but have yet to harness it. As many parents say, "you have so much potential, I wish you could just see it, and I wish you can reach it if not exceed it one day." This is also the case for humanity, and humanity's future.

I read through a good portion of your Shards thread, and I know I shouldn't even ask this, but what can I do? I understand fully that I alone am not capable of creating any change or changing the society we live in. But I want to do something.

If you are unable to enlighten others, then enlighten yourself. Learn more, develop your mind, your character, and they may better equip you to help others realize the world, and in it realize their own potential for changing it.

Your voice speaks to me like any other, for it see it reflected in me, years gone by. A voice out of part desperation, part agony; this I well understand. I ask you what of your talents, what of your passions, and how can you use them to benefit humanity, how can they be tools to right humanity's wrongs. Contemplate that, and you will have you a working solution upon which you may build. If you wish clarification or assistance, feel free to U2U me.

The way things are, it upsets me almost to the point of anger. I hesitate using the word anger.. I would say my feelings land between anger and disappointment.

Bitter Frustration, I understand, from personal experience.

I have a hard time dealing with this. I hardly want to participate in society as the way it is because of the complete hypocrisy and downright fallacy of it all. Do I continue trying to talk to people I know about these thoughts? It's not like I shove it anyone's face or tell them how incredibly wrong they are, I may get carried away on here because of the far ends of the ignorant spectrum that appear here, but I am very thoughtful and cautious of how I present myself in the real world.

Some people are just not mentally prepared to embrace every aspect of our reality. Some wish to live in their own "bubble realities" because it is safe, simplistic, and the number of issues goes from incomprehensible, to manageable.

I don't feel like keeping this to myself is the right thing to do at all, I think participating in the fallacy of our society just facilitates it and is definitely the wrong way to go about it. But what is the right away to go about it?

Visionaries and Idealists are never on the" right side," they always move against the flow, disrupt the common notion, and inevitably redefine reality as we know it. They accomplish the insurmountable, and surmount the impossible.

I struggle every day with my realizations of life, and I certainly do continue to do things I enjoy and make me happy, but the weight of the facade we live in is pretty straining at times.

We are entering an age whenst younger generations are confronted and bombard by endless amounts of data and imagery (and they wonder where ADD and ADHD come from) that we need to make sense of. The issue is in our now global society, is our "bubble realities" will soon pop. There will be no denying the influence and impact we have upon one another, as people, as societies, as nations, and as a species. We are reaching a realization that we can no longer continue this senseless dream state, realists call denial. There is a point where all are pressed to the glass, forced to see the world for what it is, and what it is not.

I will go out on a limb and assume that you are somewhat new to much of this information, much of these paradigm shifts. Often this internal conflict within is quite natural, in an unnatural environment. We all endure this process, a process nature has labeled adaptation to one's environment. By in taking both reinforcing and contradicting information we shape our own minds, and our own characters, our own realities (how we perceive the world). Once we have come to terms with this information and know how it fits, know how we fit within it, then all is far more clear. It is then when we are truly able to see our paths most clearly, and know what it is, that we must do.

- Maban

posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 01:08 AM

It is the same with wisdom, enlightenment and truth.
So many foolish people think they know without a teacher.
There are a few human beings who are knowledgeable about
enlightenment and in fact achieved enlightenment. Those that
achieved enlightenment are not going to be on the corporate
media because enlightenment brings contentment,
inner peace and corporate advertisers do not want you happy and content.
They need you to be whacked out, insecure and confused so you
will buy their pharmaceuticals, new brands of beer, soda, car, whatever.

I woudl disagree in part, there are what you call "enlightened individuals," what we the Shards call for sake of argument "Illuminated" individuals whom do hold higher/enlightened ideals/perceptions whoa re indeed within and among the corporate world, however their deeds are cast into shadow and disregard because they are not sensationalistic nor traumatic.

Therefore my friend, find enlightened beings.
I'm not going to be a missionary type person and try to sell you
on one or the other. Just keep in mind that you are looking for
authentic, genuine enlightened beings. Then learn what methods
they used to get there and try to practice those methods yourself.

Learn from prior achievements, and previous failures. It is only then we can rise above what has been, and become what will be.

- Maban

posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 05:21 AM

Originally posted by telemetry

See how many will catch it 'eh?

Here is mine for the night:
"If this universe is only a projection of myself, what happens when I turn it off?"

I will be back to check on this thread... we may get some goodies

:_

T- out

Your universe is a projection of self, it is the time and space in which you inhabit, or for want of a better term, your sphere of influence. Depending on your viewpoint, the number of universes can be finite, so by switching off your universe, for example by your death, that universe while continuing to exist in some form (ie in the memories of others, your rotting corpse feeding new life etc), would, ultimately, contract. That 'switching off' will have an overall ripple effect, that will affect other 'universes', even those outside your sphere, but that affect will subside over time. Or in some cases, in the form of memory and material possessions acquired during your physical existence, you will enter into the universes of others and become a defining feature. For example, a lover/parent/friend who cannot get over your death, will constantly define their existence by the physical absence of yours.

You are a creator, not the creator. You can only switch off those elements which you physically occupy, though you can have influence the existence of others, but that effect should not have permanence.

In my opinion

[edit on 21-1-2009 by KilgoreTrout]

posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 07:50 PM

I think we have different definitions of enlightenment and enlightened individuals.
The people you are calling enlightened individuals maybe goodhearted people but
they are ordinary citizens.
I am talking about the extraordinary mystical state of enlightenment achieved by
yogis, Bodhisattvas, Mahasiddhas, Saints, and Buddhas.
Enlightenment as the result of extraordinary compassion and the awareness
of non-duality put into practice -the absence of hate and fear.
The fearless phase change to the next level beyond human to light being.
Most people don't even glimpse this wisdom dimension hence in this context they are
ordinary.
"Beyond, beyond completely beyond" as it says in the Heart sutra.
Beyond the ordinary, beyond concepts, beyond duality into the bliss of clear light.

In terms of phase change it is like steam telling ice that you can fly and intermingle.
It's beyond the grasp of ice. Until ice goes through a phase change-water-steam, then
it is stuck thinking that reality is all solidified and cannot fathom the phase change of steam.

It is the same with the state of genuine enlightenment-since it is beyond concepts most
people cannot fathom it. However, certain individuals who have more highly developed
faculties can realize that such a state exists and that there is a path that can be followed
to reach the state of Pure, Majestic, CREATIVITY or enlightenment.

posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 11:29 PM

Understood at which point we are indeed on the same page. We simply use the term "Enlightened One," at least to some extent, although even this is somewhat imperfect. In truth, our language by nature is imperfect, and imprecise.

- Maban

posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:16 AM

Re: Discussion on Tribalism carried over from this thread;

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Originally posted by lazy1981

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Early social groups, that came together did not require governing, they were too busy surviving and working for the group to commit deviations that would require the will of the group to be imposed on the individual.

Then what was the need for the Tribal Councils and Elders then? Isn't the truth of the matter that most early tribal councils were made up of the elders, and that this was a right due to their advancement in years. Basicaly saying, "you've made it this far so you must know what's best for the rest of us." In effect that is a form of governance, being that the average person in a tribe had no say in the decisions made or whether or not they would follow the decree of the council. Esentially giving you a Geriocracy (for all intent and purpose). Unless of course you include the best hunter or things of that nature.

Or maybe it starts to look similar to some Native American Tribal Councils where you had the elders and a Cheif, which was the end all and be all. A "Geriocratic Chiefdom?" Not that I have the answer, but I think that a return to Tribalism may well put us back into any form of Oligarchy, Aristocracy, Monarchy, insert any form of Despotism here "_____________." After all that was the natural path it took the first time around.

Just because those paths have been forged in the past does not mean that we should give up on finding a better system. For me tribalism works, and what occurred beyond tribalism failed or fails. That tribalism can and does recur naturally tells me that that system works for us in ways that are not necessarily external. We have pretty much tried every system, we should know by now what works and doesn’t work and why. And we do, but in order to find what does work, we have to understand what we are and what we require to succeed as societies. We have lots of examples of what not to do, of how to fail, we need to look a little further back or afield for success stories.

First of all you have to remember that we are animals. Furthermore we are social animals, therefore we operate more efficently as a group. By efficently I mean we have a better chance of survival.

As with all mammals, the first social groups will have clustered around a dominant adult or adults. That dominance would, in the earliest, pre-language, groups, have been based upon strength and virility. In short the ability to protect and impregnate, the females of the group. In such cases, there would have not been any male elders, because as soon as their ability to serve that function had passed they would be usurped and probably excluded from the group, if not killed (evidence suggests that humans have always been murderous, as most predators are). Elder women may have remained once humans stopped being permanently nomadic because they serve a cohesive function and help care for children. Once a man could no longer hunt though he had little function in these early groups. Overall though, and we see it in those tribes that survived long enough to be recorded, the native and indigenous peoples of the Americas for example, that both geronticide and infanticide were practiced by nomadic peoples and in primitive settlements, in times of shortage. Widespread preservation of the elderly only comes into existence when man adopted more sedentary, agrarian based settlements and the groups had surplus from time to time. Only then did the elderly become productive as a group, as opposed to as the odd useful individual (usually the shaman or medicine man/woman or healer.

When man started forming these agrarian settlements different types and forms of knowledge gained value, knowledge that didn't rely entirely on those senses that fade with age. Horticulture primarily, but as significantly, fortification building. Man’s development of these two bodies of knowledge are not based upon natural or sensual skill, they are acquired, taught and learnt. When you teach you begin to use symbols to convey information visually. Then, you soon need a means of recording information and development symbols for proportions, weights and measures. As soon as you begin keeping records, you need scribes, accountants etc etc. From the skills of making shelters and growing food every other skill expands exponentially. These skills, improve with practice, with age, the acquisition and retention of new knowledge. It is at this point then that age and wisdom gains value to the ‘tribe’. But while, they are still competing with other tribes, genocidally, in some cases, then the strongest males will always have greater value to the groups as a whole.

Only when, the elders, perhaps warriors at one time themselves, begin to acquire the knowledge and experience to plan attacks and develop strategy could they over-ride the natural order of strength and virility. The brain then became our most important survival and dominance tool. Tribes who did not value their elders, and therefore their brains, would in the natural order of things, have been wiped out by those fittest. Much of our history since then has been the triumph of the brains using the brawn to achieve dominance.

From here, communities become more and more complex, as do the constraints on the individuals within that group. Dominance, as a naturally occuring phenomenon, is replaced by hierarchy to cope with the expansion of the successful group. Eventually that expansion will lead to a depletion in the social cohesion of the group and order will need to be installed. Laws are created and enforced. In a balanced, mutually supportive group there is no need for laws or order and therefore no need for enforcement. The larger the group the greater the divisions that will emerge, and essentially, the group will fracture into smaller, tribal groups. Them and us. You have tribes within a larger tribe. The smaller breakaway, deviant, or descenting tribes will revert to natural leadership based on strength and virility, therefore they, need to be outlawed as they represent a threat to the newly established brain based heirarchy. This is where governments emerge. Some of those breakaway tribes will become more successful at evading capture, develop and form groups that can overtake. Treatise, war etc etc. Territory is then divided and given out as appeasement, or joining forces to attack other settlements in exchange for being left alone themselves.

Obviously I am over-simplifying, but the point is to identify at which point a system fails. So for me, a tribe is a group of likeminded individuals, self-governing, self-supporting working towards a mutual or common goal. Most importantly without a hierarchy, but one that recognises the talents, abilities and contribution of each individual to the perpetuation and success of that group.

A study of the social behaviour of rats by John Calhoun in the 1950s (‘The Behavioural Sink’), identified that as the population expands and has to compete for space and resources (food, bedding, mates) deviant behaviour, such as rape, homosexuality, infanticide and neglect will emerge. However, if there is a means to escape and form new groups, the balance within the primary group is maintained and those behaviours dissipate. Humans are very similar, but we no longer have sufficient space in which to form new groups, and the structure of government administration and ‘nannying’ prevent us from doing so. We can’t hope to change everything overnight. Nor can we possibly hope to remove the need for a centralised governance in any hurry, if, at all. The best way, as in most things, is to work towards finding a compromise of the two.

Originally posted by lazy1981
To some extent don't you feel that just about all leaders whether "Governments" or "Tribal Councils" (if you can see a differance) at some level or another have some particular need to control certain aspects of the populace? At the very least to ensure general order in their social structure.

I certainly can see no way in which we can overcome the need for a centralised government, but I do think that we can manage with a lot less interference than we currently live under.

This is a fascinating study and well worth considering when looking at how we can form ‘communities’ that will have better success at remaining cohesive into the future.

According to a study by Robin Dunbar at the University of Liverpool, primate brain size is determined by social group size. Dunbar's conclusion was that the human brain can only really understand a maximum of 150 individuals as fully developed, complex people (see Dunbar's number). Malcolm Gladwell expanded on this conclusion sociologically in his book, The Tipping Point. According to these studies, then, "tribalism" is in some sense an inescapable fact of human neurology, simply because the human brain is not adapted to working with large populations. Beyond 150, the human brain must resort to some combination of hierarchical schemes, stereotypes, and other simplified models in order to understand so many people.

en.wikipedia.org...
To prevent hierarchy from forming we need to limit our group sizes. This cannot be reasonably implemented in every corner of civilisation, but it can serve to indicate how to form new communities and how to work towards a system of governance that preserves and promotes such communities.

This is something that I am particularly supportive of;

Eco-communalism is an environmental philosophy based on ideals of simple living, local economies, and self-sufficiency (often associated with the ideologies of socialism, communalism, and sustainability). Eco-communalists envision a future in which the economic system of capitalism is replaced with a global web of economically interdependent and interconnected small local communities. Decentralized government, a focus on agriculture, and “green economics” are all tenets of eco-communalism.

en.wikipedia.org...
Such communities cannot be completely autonomous, but with central government support there can be some concessions. I personally believe that, particularly, in the UK major land reform is required to make these schemes entirely feasible. At the very least there needs to be some return to the use of land pre-Enclosures Act. Too much land in the UK is preserved for the simple reason that it is pretty, I feel that as we look to the future the beauty to be found in productive land is of much greater value. Especially when keeping biodiversity as a priority in agriculture.

Originally posted by lazy1981
A Meritocratic form of Governance may be less than desirable also? Yes, logically I would want the best at the helm. Yet, (slippery slope, I know) it starts to push in the direction of Eugenics and all that this train of thought gave us (is my concern). Don't get me wrong I abhorrer mediocrity but I think that if the only people that qualify for postion or title are those that excel in a given feild then we have done away with peoples choice by and large. In affect only allowing them to chose who excels, and not who they see fit to govern accourding to their mind.

You are failing to see that your perception of choice is in itself limited. You do not get to choose your leader, you are presented with a limited choice and make a vote based on the choice presented. The way in which you should be represented is by someone you know and trust to make good decisions that benefit the group as a whole, your group. That person would then serve on a wider council and you would trust them to represent your best interests when they select, as a part of that council someone to represent that group. And so on and so forth.

In a meritocracy, to my mind, individuals are valued by their skills and abilities, and the success that those skills bring to the group. To use Maban’s favourites example, look at the representations of such groups existing in the various Star Treks. And, more importantly, what I think those programmes do show quite well, is how we should also be mindful of allowing ‘unsuccessful’ groups to die out naturally. The global community is not served by supporting those who cannot succeed (not to be mistaken by current communities who may fail because they are prevented by war and conflict from succeeding). There is no suffering to be seen or implied there, unsuccessful groups would simply break up and merge with other tribes or try elsewhere etc, if they are not given hand-outs or subsidies or no expectation of ‘saviour’ (or for that matter be allowed to steal all the children from the Enterprise because they can’t procreate!).

For me, the trick is, to limit spheres of influence without limiting social mobility and individual choice. I also think that you need to encourage dynamism into the system, where new ideas, blue skies research are welcomed and supported in all areas without a basis in creating profit.

posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 12:58 AM

No need to worry about being long winded
, I prefer to have discussion with substance, and not be vague with one another. You put alot of thought into your post. "Star!" I can't say that I'm as deeply versed in Anthropology/Sociology as you seem to be. But I'll give it a whirl based upon what I know, and logic. As we say in the states, "I'm a Jack of all trades and master of none." I dabble in a bit of everything.

We have pretty much tried every system,

True we have pretty much tried every system that we can think of, "thus far" but I think as a people we can take from the old but generaly speaking once a system has failed due to flaws in it (whether design flaws or flaws arise by human nature) the only relevance this form of "Governance" should hold is one of a junk yard car in many ways. Though it is good for spare parts it should never be allowed back on the road as an operational vehicle. They were scrapped for a reason.

As for my veiw (and to some extent yours) that tribalism evolved into the damaging forms of government that I tried to enumerate will only recur. I know that people say history doesn't repeat itself but I think Mark Twain put it best, "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

we should know by now what works and doesn’t work and why.

The only thing that I can say to that is, we have been trying to figure this out for a long while now and we still haven't gotten it perfect. It's going to take us a long while yet and many more attempts before we get it just right. My guess is that it will probably be by accident. Not to be taken as a slight but, I think as far as finding that perfect form of government goes we would do well to get away from antiquated mindframes. In the same sense we should learn from past mistakes and maybe infuse good qualities from the old with "fresh ideas."

Here's how I see it, I like to tell people that you can't spend your life looking behind you (i.e. living in the past). If you're looking over your shoulder while walking you'll fall flat on your face. And you can't look at your feet while walking, (i.e. "living in the now"). You'll never see what's headed for you until it's too late. In the same token you can't spend your life dreaming (i.e. looking to far ahead). If you look to far down the road while walking you cant see the obstacles in your path, or you may miss the good things that are a bit closer.

You "glance" at the past from time to time to keep leasons learned fresh in your mind. This way you can recognize an obstacle when there is one "here and now." And you look to the future "from time to time" in order to have a goal and not wander aimlessly.

Now I know I sound like my compass is pointed in the wrong direction but I think you should be following me. The point focuses on "one" of my little rules to live by. We can't keep "solely" to the past for a "FRESH" start. We need to strike the balance between "looking behind us" and "down the road" for a fresh idea in order to really walk without falling on our faces as we have so many times before.

First of all you have to remember that we are animals.

We will have to agree to disagree on this statement. What I will say is that I view our base instincts as "human nature." I call it the me first syndrome. And that's all I really want to say about this topic.

the native and indigenous peoples of the Americas for example, that both geronticide and infanticide were practiced by nomadic peoples and in primitive settlements, in times of shortage.

This I beleive is a misconception that people perpetuate due to the practices of the Yupik and Inuit Tribes or "Eskimos."

Widespread preservation of the elderly only comes into existence when man adopted more sedentary, agrarian based settlements and the groups had surplus from time to time. Only then did the elderly become productive as a group, as opposed to as the odd useful individual (usually the shaman or medicine man/woman or healer.

This is conjecture on many levels and by many people. Whether Man was nomadic, hunter gathers, or a settled farming society people have always accumulated knowlege and it was passed on by word of mouth for thousands of years. Logic would dictated that the eldest of the tribe would be the most learned and therefore hold a place of reverance and postion. Viewed as wise and best able to make the desicions.

If the argument to be made is of a more primitive culture then I would agree that "Survival of the Fittest" would come into play and the old would indeed be usurped by the younger and stronger. But this is not a "Society" by any streach of the word. That is, "Base Instinct." So in essence that's apples and oranges.

I certainly can see no way in which we can overcome the need for a centralised government, but I do think that we can manage with a lot less interference than we currently live under.

I really wasn't making a case for a "Central Government" but I see your point. I am actually of the opinion that centralized governments are Inherently dangerous to the liberties (and wallets) of those that they govern.

Beyond 150, the human brain must resort to some combination of hierarchical schemes, stereotypes, and other simplified models in order to understand so many people.

This is very poignant. I have seen this in action. Chicago is a traditionaly diverse city, yet until recently we had all lived (to some extent still do) in small ethnic neighborhoods. You could go a good portion of your life without leaving a certain area of the city unless you felt inclined to do otherwise. It wasn't just a neighborhood thing, it was more of a frame of mind.

To prevent hierarchy from forming we need to limit our group sizes.

First of all this will not work for large cities.
Secondly I have read Marx and a few others. This quote and the article that you posted on "Eco-communalism" are straight out of Marx. They don't, "sound like Socialism" they are socialism and nowhere in the world has it ever worked. Socialism is a flawed idea of Utopianism and human nature can not allow it to work.

posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 01:54 AM

Even the Pilgrims experimented with it as early as the 1600's and it didn't work. Just as in the USSR, Cuba, China, ect.

Private and communal farming (1623)

"All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other thing to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients applauded by some of later times; and that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men’s corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them." Modern History Sourcebook: William Bradford: History of Plymouth Plantation

Such communities cannot be completely autonomous, but with central government support there can be some concessions.

We've been trying to get that straight over here for more than two hundred years. "These" United States of America (not THE) were intended to be a cohesive group of semi-autonomous states in league, haveing a central government "only" to resolve specific issues between the states and foreign powers. It was never supposed to be the governing monster that it has grown into. This is why Americans that actually understand this are offended by the very notion of globalizm, it started with our sates first.

Too much land in the UK is preserved for the simple reason that it is pretty,

We have the same problem, alot of our land is actually Federal Preserve and the Feds. have (without right, due to the fact that they never asked the true owners "the people") ceded this land to the UN or UNESCO as World Heritage Sites. We have a huge oil feild in the Alaskan Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) that we can't touch. It's basicly tundra and they only want to drill a small portion. Go figure.

You do not get to choose your leader, you are presented with a limited choice and make a vote based on the choice presented.

Sadley, I know this all too well. Rep or Dem. Two sides of the same coin if you ask me. I'd prefer an Independent that thinks for themselves but they never get a real chance because it's alway conveniently some kook that gets a chance to run.

The way in which you should be represented is by someone you know and trust to make good decisions that benefit the group as a whole, your group. That person would then serve on a wider council and you would trust them to represent your best interests when they select, as a part of that council someone to represent that group. And so on and so forth.

Again this posses a problem. As you have pointed out it will eventually create an "us against them" mentality As seen with the Rep./Dem. issue for example. Especially when you have groups with opposing lifestyles of views. Not to mention the large cities with vast populations.

In a meritocracy, to my mind, individuals are valued by their skills and abilities, and the success that those skills bring to the group.

As before I see the logic here but I have my reservations. What of the day when it becomes expedient to once more use old ways and "set those adrift" as the Eskimo did. This time because they have no real skills and become a hinderance to the rest of the tribe??? It can lead down a bad road.

limit spheres of influence without limiting social mobility and individual choice. I also think that you need to encourage dynamism into the system, where new ideas, blue skies research are welcomed and supported in all areas without a basis in creating profit.

Sounds like a great idea, only that this little devil (human nature or greed) comes into play.

new topics

top topics

37