reply to post by walkinglucid
Good to see people thinking about this!
Should have watched the spelling a little more closely, though.
What is a proper, non-manipulative, workable way to solve a problem?
Problem -> Discovery of correct source -> Vanishment of Problem
The way to "solve" a problem is to discover exactly what really created it.
In energetic terms, a problem is resistance to a flow or an intention.
Problems make games. There is nothing intrinsically bad about them. You want to get across a canyon. Gravity wants you to fall to your death. You
"solve" it by building a bridge (unless you're Evel Knievel). It's a good game. But you didn't solve the problem of gravity. You just found a way
to defy it. If you knew the true source of gravity, you might be able to learn how to float across the canyon without a bridge. But most of us
consider gravity a "fun" problem.
Someone wants to be king of the world. He thinks he has to kill half the population to do it. He tries to convince half the population that the other
half is their enemy. His arguments are very convincing. He can produce lots of "evidence." If the correct source of the "problem" is not
discovered, a lot of people will try to "solve" the "problem" of how to kill all their "enemies." A lot of people will die, but they aren't
solving the problem they think they are solving! If the correct source of the "problem" is discovered, the people will laugh at all the manufactured
"evidence." Nothing will happen.
The main difference between the two examples is that the first problem was based on true data and the second was based on false data.
Is there any hope of "solving" the economy this way?
1) True or false: "The economy expands and contracts mainly due to market forces."
2) True or false: "The economy expands and contracts mainly due to insider manipulation."
This situation is not as simple.
If you think 1) is right, then you have to find a way to manufacture some money so that more people will be able to buy things.
If you think 2) is right, then you will seek to bring the insiders to justice and make them repay all the people they stole money from.
2) is more true, but the handling is harder to confront. So, with big problems, issues of courage and moral strength enter in. Still, if you knew the
true sources of cowardice and moral weakness, they might vanish as problems, making the economy an easier "problem" to solve.