[Ibon]

edit: A very late edit.......The actual nuts and bots of this exercise will involve money, lots of it hence my perfecting of price discovery for that purpose........and structures and support to get people into the space where one can access them with this sort of information. In other words, I will have to set up something pretty big on the global stage. Of course for me, I will need to ensure that people recognise that they are working for themselves and a greater good and not deify me and I am presently giving that some thought. But it is exciting to use capitalism in dialectic fashion....if all works well, we may be able to hang onto the gains made in the sciences etc.

In summary the world will suddenly move from primitivistic social tendencies to enlightened consciousness once the money you use to market your ideas spreads like a virus. And the masses will not deify you in your noble mission. We here at PO.com, still stuck in quite primitivistic social tendencies, are your guinea pigs. I would say you have a long road ahead and a lot of work to do gauging from the responses you read here from other posters. Good Luck.

I think I failed. I remain quite entrenched in primitivistic social tendencies after our discourse. After all, I am a patron here at Mount Totumas with quite a few peons working for me, being the big landlord that I am. I have no intention of socializing this place. Why should I? Why would I sacrifice my privilege?

[evilgenius]

birthing the fully conscious society.

Yes that it what I meant by evolved. The goal being having all humans realize this potential. The culture and the individual working in a symbiotic manner to realize the full potential of humanity. I would think that a big part of a well functioning society has been and will always be universal education. The molding of minds is a science now well studied and we can take utilize this knowledge to better educate all.

I would prefer that minds were "Opened" not crammed into a mold designed by other imperfect humans.

Yes, but the key to any civil benchmark is the reasonableness standard which encircles the judicial process and ensures that consensus always prevails. So we judge by fairly accessible and majority standards which ensures that whilst we dot not arbitrarily deny freedoms, we hold ourselves to a desirable standard and do not fall prey to inconsistency.

Your average person simply does not have the memory. In lieu of that a cultural education is what most people get. They conform to their class, and only break out of it if they find the right circumstances.

Of course, many say there aren't any classes in America. Ha, ha.

The problem with Marx was not that he didn't want to free man. His problem was that he saw the working class as some kind of panacea. Just because the working class is a kind of representative sample of the collective, the collective incarnate if you will, doesn't make them right.

What you need are fully empowered individuals who themselves have overcome the limitations that individual people have to reaching enlightenment, this kind of enlightenment. Because you are talking about being able to look around and see what is going on and react ethically to it. Most people can't do that. Most people are locked in silos of mental enslavement in one way or another, and their lack of memory prevents them from escaping. Instead they just make the same mistakes over and over again. In lieu of that kind of memory what they really need is a workable heuristic for finding truth that does the same thing that an exceptional memory can do for a person. It still takes trial and error, but when you select a crapper solution one time at least you don't select it again another time, at least not in the same context. The collective can do that, but it is dangerous to rely upon the collective because it can also harbor the very worst things or some death of the good, and offer them to you as if on a silver platter.

[kanon]

Conscientising will require some effort from an audience as they are intuiting a new approach to thinking and relating with the world around them.That said, I tend to condense that conceptual exercise in short, succinct points to get to the heart of the exercise.

Thus when I tell you that evolution contemplates pure reason borne of a needs based culture and not reason borne of objects mediated social relations, everything that needs to be said and done is in that one sentence. Of course irs not an easy transition to make but baby footsteps. Grasp the core points first and let them percolate in the background.


edit. I had to break off then to catch London opening. Apologies

So basically, you dont have to do anything UNTIL you have learnt to think in the new paradigm. You are like seeds. If I can seed you to go out there grasping these concepts, you will then take on the dialectic function and live it. It is through that approach that we can actually thwart capitalism and preside over a flowering of new cultural forms.....right within capitals heart.

Are you advocating a priesthood?

[evilgenius]

...socialists think all value comes from labor and so workers should get all the profit.

That is the nonsense Capitalists spout to obfuscate the issue. One, it isn't necessarily a socialist issue, but clearly a labor one, two, the issue is wanting to be paid the value of their labor, not that all value comes from labor.

Unforunately, the way the system works is that labor is paid as little as possible, and profit becomes mostly derived from the excess unpaid value of that labor. That's called exploitation of labor by not paying them the true value of that labor and harvesting the rest.

There is also the way the entire system is designed to ensure that labor has no choice but to sell their labor for less that it's value or starve and become homeless, but that's another issue.

The issue is that the price of labor, as with the price of everything, is determined by a market. You can't conflate human value and the value of doing labor. What the Capitalists do is to prevent labor from arguing for their side of the equation. What the Communists do is to insist that there is some intrinsic value to labor which exists outside of the actual market that determines labor's value. Both of these conspire against organized labor. The one wants to compete, keeping costs down. The other can't accept a viewpoint that undermines their legitimacy as rulers. Neither viewpoint has any consideration for the ethics embedded within the quagmire.

[americandream]

The communist point on labour value is that it is the source from which commodities derive their value in the transformation process along with the capitalists contribution of capital. However, without the input of labour, capital would be a dead entity, devoid of any use.

The next step of course is the investigation of the workers share from that exercise and in that context, given the presence of the hidden subsidies such as commons infrastructure and commons resourcing (minus the capitalists extraction costs) the exchange advantages the capitalist. The other dynamic hidden costs such as the climate and peaking issues we discuss here means that the worker is better advised taking control of this process. Marx also added Darwinian elements to this mix by his infusion of the consciousness mechanism into this mix with the implications of course that evolution will be the final arbiter in how we use this planet.

Ethics being purely subjective has no relevance whatsoever.

[americandream]

Conscientising will require some effort from an audience as they are intuiting a new approach to thinking and relating with the world around them.That said, I tend to condense that conceptual exercise in short, succinct points to get to the heart of the exercise.

Thus when I tell you that evolution contemplates pure reason borne of a needs based culture and not reason borne of objects mediated social relations, everything that needs to be said and done is in that one sentence. Of course irs not an easy transition to make but baby footsteps. Grasp the core points first and let them percolate in the background.


edit. I had to break off then to catch London opening. Apologies

So basically, you dont have to do anything UNTIL you have learnt to think in the new paradigm. You are like seeds. If I can seed you to go out there grasping these concepts, you will then take on the dialectic function and live it. It is through that approach that we can actually thwart capitalism and preside over a flowering of new cultural forms.....right within capitals heart.

Are you advocating a priesthood?

No. I am advocating that you use your noggin as evolution contemplates.

[americandream]

edit: A very late edit.......The actual nuts and bots of this exercise will involve money, lots of it hence my perfecting of price discovery for that purpose........and structures and support to get people into the space where one can access them with this sort of information. In other words, I will have to set up something pretty big on the global stage. Of course for me, I will need to ensure that people recognise that they are working for themselves and a greater good and not deify me and I am presently giving that some thought. But it is exciting to use capitalism in dialectic fashion....if all works well, we may be able to hang onto the gains made in the sciences etc.

In summary the world will suddenly move from primitivistic social tendencies to enlightened consciousness once the money you use to market your ideas spreads like a virus. And the masses will not deify you in your noble mission. We here at PO.com, still stuck in quite primitivistic social tendencies, are your guinea pigs. I would say you have a long road ahead and a lot of work to do gauging from the responses you read here from other posters. Good Luck.

I think I failed. I remain quite entrenched in primitivistic social tendencies after our discourse. After all, I am a patron here at Mount Totumas with quite a few peons working for me, being the big landlord that I am. I have no intention of socializing this place. Why should I? Why would I sacrifice my privilege?

That is a fair comment. As long as you recognise the evolutionary forces at play and reject them for personal gain, then you are acting from a subjective preference whilst acknowledging the consciousness mechanism. It is important to understand these forces even if one chooses to reject them and your rejection is understandable from your position as landed benefactor. This is a very high quality debate as it brings the core issues to the surface rather than emotional baggage such as freedom or sacredness of a mystical nature as that often confuses and misleads the masses.

[americandream]

I think the Iron Lady said it best,

The trouble with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of OTHER PEOPLE’S money.

I dont want to sound like I am trying to upstage you but I could not resist the following:

The trouble with capitalism is that sooner or later you run out of EVERYONES only home planet.

[Subjectivist]

I think the Iron Lady said it best,

The trouble with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of OTHER PEOPLE’S money.

I dont want to sound like I am trying to upstage you but I could not resist the following:

The trouble with capitalism is that sooner or later you run out of EVERYONES only home planet.

That might be a cutting remark if you ignore that Western Europe is pretty socialist and China still calls itself a People's Republic.

[Pops]

Actually you could easily replace "socialism" with "capitalism" and have at least as true a statement.

I'm thinking part of our problem here in the teens is profits (other people's money) has been trickled up to the owners to the extent that demand is flat and falling, so investment is not warranted and overall growth is stagnant.

Perhaps the US has been immuned for a minute by free money but others seem pretty lackluster.

[americandream]

I think the Iron Lady said it best,

The trouble with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of OTHER PEOPLE’S money.

I dont want to sound like I am trying to upstage you but I could not resist the following:

The trouble with capitalism is that sooner or later you run out of EVERYONES only home planet.

That might be a cutting remark if you ignore that Western Europe is pretty socialist and China still calls itself a People's Republic.

A function of not understanding consciousness driven socialism is socialism with infinite growth. An absurdity no doubt. But no less absurd than comments on this forum elevating mysticism whilst shielding feudal impulses for post capitalist construction. Absurd because this is running against the tide of evolution and doomed for failure.

I urge you to contemplate my summary posts elsewhere which cover the paradoxes you mentioned.

[onlooker]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/ten-myths- ... lism/30084
I think it is instructive to view the basic tenets of capitalism in terms of the myths surrounding it. I post this link. The essence of capitalism growth is anathema to a finite and limited planet such as ours.

[americandream]

Actually you could easily replace "socialism" with "capitalism" and have at least as true a statement.

I'm thinking part of our problem here in the teens is profits (other people's money) has been trickled up to the owners to the extent that demand is flat and falling, so investment is not warranted and overall growth is stagnant.

Perhaps the US has been immuned for a minute by free money but others seem pretty lackluster.

Demand for commodification is cyclical, a function of market spread timing and will never fall until capitalism hits planetary buffers. Investment lags that process hence the hysteria bubbles.

[Ibon]

Why would I sacrifice my privilege?

That is a fair comment. As long as you recognise the evolutionary forces at play and reject them for personal gain,

If we recognize the variances within individual humans in terms of work ethic, intellectual intelligence, emotional intelligence, high or low levels of aggressiveness, altruism, selfishness, indolence, etc. and we furthermore recognize that a great percentage of humans do not want consciousness but prefer to follow rather than lead, how do you come to the conclusion that the evolutionary forces at play are leading us toward egalitarian socialism rather than say an environmentally benevolent authoritarianism? Think about the pathway down to carrying capacity and the pressures when consequences start applying constraints to a global population conditioned to high consumption. At least initially we will see authoritarian responses to managing an increasingly agitated global population having had the consumption rug yanked out and under from them.

On the other hand I can see how populist uprisings against the disparity of wealth during times of constraints will put pressure toward a more equal distribution of resources that will increasingly be reserved for basic needs. This would support your theory I guess. Care to elaborate?

[americandream]

Why would I sacrifice my privilege?

That is a fair comment. As long as you recognise the evolutionary forces at play and reject them for personal gain,

If we recognize the variances within individual humans in terms of work ethic, intellectual intelligence, emotional intelligence, high or low levels of aggressiveness, altruism, selfishness, indolence, etc. and we furthermore recognize that a great percentage of humans do not want consciousness but prefer to follow rather than lead, how do you come to the conclusion that the evolutionary forces at play are leading us toward egalitarian socialism rather than say an environmentally benevolent authoritarianism? Think about the pathway down to carrying capacity and the pressures when consequences start applying constraints to a global population conditioned to high consumption. At least initially we will see authoritarian responses to managing an increasingly agitated global population having had the consumption rug yanked out and under from them.

On the other hand I can see how populist uprisings against the disparity of wealth during times of constraints will put pressure toward a more equal distribution of resources that will increasingly be reserved for basic needs. This would support your theory I guess. Care to elaborate?

I refer you to your very own mysticism which you clearly are fond of and to give these institutions their due, has helped to document the gradual activation of our consciousness capacity. Throughout recent histury, there is clear documented evidence of a desire to give effect to the reasonableness threshold, in biblical pronouncements of forgiveness, to koranic expressions of a mutlipolar world to buddhist notions of detachment. The Age of Reason codified this impulse and enabled us to shed this exercise of other worldly influence thus placing it in its context.

Giving effect to this ongoing impulse is a more reasonable assessment of continuing evolutionary trends than calls to fall back through the glass floor of Reason back into the murky depths of mystic shrouded privilege, disparities in our current use of the consciousness capacity notwithstanding. In fact confronting those disparities with a viable action plan rather then throwing up ones hands in defeatism to relent to the unworkeable is the best hope for your kids at the very least, that is if you value a future for them and cannot move beyond your personal needs.

[Ibon]

In fact confronting those disparities with a viable action plan rather then throwing up ones hands in defeatism to relent to the unworkeable is the best hope for your kids at the very least, that is if you value a future for them and cannot move beyond your personal needs.

I think you just focused correctly on ones family here .When human overshoot puts on the squeeze one falls back on ones family first and foremost and from there to ones community, province, nation. You are mentioning a top down approach in wanting to use your money to create a viral new understanding of conscious socialism.

You fail miserably to explain here how this will be practically executed. In fact what you propose is incredible.

[onlooker]

I find this exchange between Ibon and AD very intriguing. On the one hand AD decrying the uplifting of Man via conscious reasoning and Ibon saying that a mysticism borne out of the dramatic consequences of overshoot shall reign supreme. The essence of the duality of a human is the emotions and reason. I dare say that we cannot separate them. If mankind can somehow muster a response that is bereft of barbarism and savagery in the aftermath of overshoot then perhaps we will emerge on the other side of the bottleneck. But reason alone cannot suffice in the tumultuous times ahead. An appeal to the highest virtues of mankind must be juxtaposed within the pragmatic chores and preoccupation with resurrecting society . I think that is what Ibon refers to AD. A profound anchoring of the human psyche and spirit via a communion with timeless virtues of caring, altruism, peace , harmony and love. Reason does not inform us about these virtues only our emotions can connect with these virtues. Ultimately, these virtues are what can guide us to greener pastures in the future. To me a divorce from Nature has been symptomatic of a divorce from these higher virtues. These higher virtues are life affirming while we live now in the age of destruction.

[evilgenius]

The communist point on labour value is that it is the source from which commodities derive their value in the transformation process along with the capitalists contribution of capital. However, without the input of labour, capital would be a dead entity, devoid of any use.

The next step of course is the investigation of the workers share from that exercise and in that context, given the presence of the hidden subsidies such as commons infrastructure and commons resourcing (minus the capitalists extraction costs) the exchange advantages the capitalist. The other dynamic hidden costs such as the climate and peaking issues we discuss here means that the worker is better advised taking control of this process. Marx also added Darwinian elements to this mix by his infusion of the consciousness mechanism into this mix with the implications of course that evolution will be the final arbiter in how we use this planet.

Ethics being purely subjective has no relevance whatsoever.

That may be Marx's point of view, but it is actually pure bunk. The truth is that labor does not add value to anything. Value is always determined by a market. And that is why the short-term thinking underlying corporate philosophy reigns. It's also why I say that the only way to introduce something that can change the way that corporation's philosophical thinking operates is to introduce a competitor within that system.

If I picked up a stone and declared it had value, and for some strange reason everybody believed me, where would the value come from? Would it come from my action of picking the thing up? Would it come from the work I put into my voice? Would it come from the work I put into scheming enough to make people believe some rock had value? No, it would come from the belief that people had in its value. All value comes from belief, even that which is further extrapolated when it works within dynamic systems like banking systems. Things are worth what people are willing to pay for them.

[americandream]

In fact confronting those disparities with a viable action plan rather then throwing up ones hands in defeatism to relent to the unworkeable is the best hope for your kids at the very least, that is if you value a future for them and cannot move beyond your personal needs.

I think you just focused correctly on ones family here .When human overshoot puts on the squeeze one falls back on ones family first and foremost and from there to ones community, province, nation. You are mentioning a top down approach in wanting to use your money to create a viral new understanding of conscious socialism.

You fail miserably to explain here how this will be practically executed. In fact what you propose is incredible.

I am delighted at the quality of your inquiry Ibon so on occasion I may lightly rebuke you but on the whole, you are trying which is good.

The trick is to primarily focus on evolutions objects..........as reasonably as it is possible to be inferred from history and what we have documented as we have moved from the social relations we inherited from our instinct driven origins to the the cranial capacity to forwardise our senses. This should be our core focus. The next step then is how to drop away remaining baggage from our subjective origins. This is a necessary exercise as we are not under any condition, after having crossed that tooling threshold of modern commodification, to be able to put that Pandora back in its box. It forever holds the promise of accumulation to succeeding generations of any reactionary rebuild of capitalism, if the climate does not preempt us. And if one truly values ones children that is the only course left.

Granted the vast bulk of humanity are underutilised in terms of their consciousness capacity BUT that is another leg of the core challenge we face.....how to leave a viable future for future generations including our children.

Simply throwing that baby out with the bathwater of humanitys incomplete state is missing the point absolutely. If I can alert others of the steps in this process, we then have other centres of coordination as this should be a multipolar event and not the actions of one person agent ideally.

I am quite optimistic from recent developments here. Entrenched resistance such as that of SG or Cog suggests that sacred impulses are being pushed, with discomfort clearly, but being pushed nonetheless. SGs quality of questioning is improving in leaps and bounds and Cog is a little tidier of late.

[americandream]

The communist point on labour value is that it is the source from which commodities derive their value in the transformation process along with the capitalists contribution of capital. However, without the input of labour, capital would be a dead entity, devoid of any use.

That may be Marx's point of view, but it is actually pure bunk. The truth is that labor does not add value to anything. Value is always determined by a market.

Not quite and this is basic physics. Commodification requires the transfer of energy, sentient human energy to mould the object and inorganic energy in oil to amplify that moulding process. So human energy is the most desired having the capacity to consciously add value to something and oil is a necessary amplifier to render the process JIT.

Value of that energy input in the market is expressed through the commodities vintage. If of a needs nature, it is thus valued for that function, if on a wants basis, the ad industry plays a role here in creating an objects mediated social relation.