No, you're not, because I didn't say that. I said this:

"In a political context, I think that utopian thinking is often harmful. People often use the goal of an ideal social system as an excuse for evil actions."

That doesn't imply that "searching for an ideal is ultimately hurtful to man."

Yes. What do you think communism (as one example) is?

I don't think im always as far off from comprehension and context than people assume.

Yes. What do you think communism (as one example) is?[/QUOTE]
Communism in the context of the history of man (what happened) was a movement that divided and separated a peoples from the rest of the world, and its leaders from its people, and its military from its people. It is fundamentally flawed in its current definition and cannot possibly be shown to be or lead to utopia. Naziism's attempt to pursue ideal society would instantly to the same argument.

I think they are not in the same direction as utopia and should not be used as examples to suggest caution in the direction of the positive

Okay, but you're wrong about this. This is just a fact.

What is your disagreement here? That communism isn't a utopian ideology? Because if so you are ignorant or wrong about communism as an ideology. Otherwise, we seem to agree that it led to ill effects as actually applied.

we agree its a bad thing, and was a bad thing, but I am arguing it doesn't belong in a conversation about ideal living, because it is not an attempt to addresses the issue. It is disguised to look like an attempt that then resulted in great suffering, but it is really just a continuity of mans suppression over itself.

You have a particular conception of an ideal society where there is no suppression or separation between people. Communist ideology also has a particular conception of an ideal society without oppression or class divisions. Just because their conception is different from yours--or even one that you think is ultimately harmful--doesn't mean it isn't a conception based on an ideal.

In fact, that is my whole point here, that sometimes acting on the basis of a political ideal can lead to worse results.

I think i understand, and i think i have a very subtle yet valid point, that the creates, enactors, and reflectors (us), have rendered the ideal "A" into something that is not ideal 'communism'

The miscommunication i think comes when you ask what system I propose then, or how to render communism towards an ideal society.

I think then we move to quickly past the insertion of variable A. We need to stare at the formula that accepts ab ideal and not defeat it or try to define it, before accepting it as valid.

I always liken this to nash equilibrium, where many players ignore it, because we don't play vs ideal players, and/or the instantaneously adjust from it before spending time contemplating the root of such adjustments.

Okay.

Is this just as incoherent?

You seem to pride yourself on holding the ideal of prejudice being bad.

Did you ever stop to consider that a society abstaining from violence might be a very destructive idea?

I'm not asking for platitudes here. I'm looking for an honest answer.

Hah, I've been discussing that interview elsewhere, and the story that followed it when a UK tory MP called Brand a 'tw*t' for being negative without offering any solutions. I don't think he was incoherent and Paxman is so deeply entrenched in his own paradigm that what Brand was saying just didn't compute. That's strange, because Paxman is far from stupid.

I think Brand has valid points, the system is flawed and does need to change but I don't agree that 'profit is a dirty word'. We need competition, it's good for us as a species and we're not all equal which is why Communism failed. What we really need is ethical competition. I'm a fan of Capitalism but I think the system is being badly abused.

Newguy, you seem to have the misapprehension that 1) there is such a thing as an ideal society, or way to live, and 2) that we can do anything to create one.

Believing that there is an ideal society out there is the same paradigm as any other belief, any other desire or seeking. It implies that violence is bad, or that people shouldnt do x, which, on a certain level may be true, but on the level you are aiming at, is not true, because there is no such thing as good or bad, and everything is "accepted".

Believing that we can do anything about it is also the same paradigm as any other belief. We can invent a fantastic system with all sorts of checks and balances to try and force everyone to be nice, or to be equal, or to be "ideal" ( where ideal would just be whatever you decided was ideal), and it will still fail . On the level I guess you are aiming at, the only thing we can actually work on is ourselves. And even then, you cant actually work on yourself, because you dont exist, so all that happens is that truth is seen, rather than being lost in illusion. The illusions are seen and recognised. And one of the illusions is a need to change other people for the better.

This doesnt mean that we should just give up and do nothing, but the desire to change people ( or even to change yourself) comes from exactly the same root that you are trying to destroy with your Ideal society idea.

? No, it's a paradigm, but it's not the same one. Some people (Paxman in the interview for example) operate from the paradigm that you must change the system from inside, by using your vote. Brand differs by believing that votes achieve nothing because they simply perpetuate the system he'd like to change so he's operating from a completely different paradigm.

Are you sure that you know what paradigm means?

How could a 'fantastic system' fail?

I was using paradigm as I understood Newguy to be meaning it, since my post was in reply to him.

You changed your definition of paradigm to fit it to what you think newguy means when he uses it? That could get kinda confusing dontcha think?

You didn't answer my question about how a fantastic system could fail?

you dont answer over half my questions either, so I dont think I will bother

Simply not true, you're confusing my having to make multiple attempts to answer the same question put to me over and over again by you because you haven't understood or are not satisfied with my answer, with my not answering, which never happens if I've seen a question. I never deliberately ignore questions although I will very occasionally shelve them until I feel I can answer them. That tends to happen with more with posters like Zumby or OrP though.

However, I don't blame you for not trying to defend or illustrate the statement that a 'fantastic system' will 'still fail'.

Please assume that I'm using standard definitions for all the words in this post and not changing any definitions because I'm speaking to you.

I think by definition is sort of is bad. Its still worth looking into it, but the idea is we are making judgments with out the proper knowledge to do so. Prejudice as a foundation is what we need to check for as thats obv not a solid foundation to start from.
Again we might start with the understanding that violence itself is destructive. But destruction is not always violent. A society abstaining possibly leading to unwated destruction is definitely something to explore but I think we have shown what violence does lead to.

Not sure exactly what platitudes means, but I think the answer is or should be yes, I try to consider all these possibilities. But I think that I have not so much come to a conclusion, but realize that these considerations begin to break down our preconceived notions, and as that happens we start to loosen the hold on all our preconceived notions. This may or may not lead to something important, but its something that many have not and may never consider.

I hope that was an answer enough that wasn't a platitude.

Yes I think it is strange, and quite a testament to the human condition we face today. I think in the past we stopped at "well do you have a better way?" and should have instead stayed with "our current system is flawed". Even if we can't find a better way, admitting the obvious flaw seems like a giant step forward.
I think this is just more conditioning. I do feel I am somewhat free from such conditioning and things like this seem easy for me to see as what they are. Communism wasn't communism, it was the proposition of communism that in reality was mixed with all the same social conditioning the rest of the world seems to have always had. The communist states separate themselves from the non communist state and you have the beginning of the same root of conflict that was always there. I also forgot to bring up China as example in another thread, its really just a different form of segregation.

I think that 'profit' is not really the thing we need to keep, I would suggest it is just that word/concept that is keeping us trapped in our daily living and beliefs. Efficiency should be the goal, that is what is good for everyone including the inventor of it. There are plenty of people that why try just as hard or harder for efficiency. What we need to avoid is those that profit without efficiency.

The worry is with capitalism there are those that profit off of something that suppresses the world in someway, this can be as simple as selling something that someone doesn't need. Capitalism creates medicine that don't heal people, efficiency would create treatments that work.

And I understand your concern about progress through competition, but we can do a lot better I think from the synergy created by working together. I do think that believing this isn't true is simply our conditioning. That's why I like the game of this thread because as we start to push our boundaries with our imagination we question whether or not this place is really separate from heaven (our ideal).

I understand your argument as we have gone quite deep into, however I would point out that we should be able to start with an assumption of 'ideal' whether achievable or not. Too many people stop before that. I would prob agree with you more that what we think is ideal may not be. So I think its important to sort of have that variable like x = ideal. We may not be able to take it beyond that but again i think that is a giant leap forward.

If we feel we cannot at least do that, I would suggest it is conditioning that stops us from doing so.


I think this is a separate issue that only needs to be a approached after we establish the possibility of ideal.

My worry would be this is simply conditioning. That any ancient wisdoms are corrupted by mans conditioned beliefs that we cannot seek or create ideals. It is true that it seems any attempts at choosing or enact our beliefs in what is ideal will likely or has brought things away from ideal, but we cannot ignore the obvious tangible observations that many of the worlds issues are very solvable in a tangible way. I think that no religious text have suggested we are not allowed to address this issues.

Believing that we can do anything about it is also the same paradigm as any other belief. We can invent a fantastic system with all sorts of checks and balances to try and force everyone to be nice, or to be equal, or to be "ideal" ( where ideal would just be whatever you decided was ideal), and it will still fail . On the level I guess you are aiming at, the only thing we can actually work on is ourselves. And even then, you cant actually work on yourself, because you dont exist, so all that happens is that truth is seen, rather than being lost in illusion. The illusions are seen and recognized. And one of the illusions is a need to change other people for the better.

Yes and we have been through this and both understand it, but there is a difference between those that want to validate their own individual worth by changing things around them, and those that seek to break the limited beliefs of individualism and seek radical change through proper growth.

In other words we both see and accept this as illusion, but where is the law that says we cannot affect the illusion. Why can't it be different, I think it can, and not through such actions you might think I am implying, but instead through the simply observation that we can enact change through awareness of the real issues (which are really just forms of ignorance).

Yes Neeel knows what paradigm is, but we have explored a different kind of paradigm that takes quite some time to see from, or it's that our current paradigm is super hard to get over. You do seem to get RB's paradigm quite well, but it leads to a bigger paradigm that questions some things that we never thought questionable. Neeel points to them without much explanation because we have 50pages of talks on the issue.

Forgive them because this is what is necessary to have dialog on this context with me. I don't always purposefully change the context, but I do admit that I do it. Mostly it is crucial to our understanding. Some of the words we use have unwanted conditioning attached to them, much of what wasn't meant to be attached to the words as they are rendered from past applications. What many don't realize is that my use of them is not as wrong as it seems and may actually be the same definition but when put into the proper or more real paradigm that I am coming from they seem to change there meaning altogether.

An example might be that we use a certain word like a point on a graph that satisfies an equation, but the real solution is a line that passes through that dot. Both are solutions but the line is the real full solution.

I actually do have a suggestion. The short version is that I think most human problems stem from resource issues and the answer is to provide so many resources that behaviours and impacts resulting from scarcity of resources, such as greed, war, economic disparity, poverty, etc etc, simply cease to happen.

Those resources are available in our solar system, more than we could ever use.

Communism failed because it didn't take human nature into account.

Instead of 'profit' use 'benefit' instead then, it's the same result. How do you reconcile 'efficiency' with the human tendency toward greed?

Competition stimulates innovation, initiative and resourcefulness so I believe that has benefits for when we work together and that has no relation to the reasons why we don't work together, they're a seperate issue. I think think the obvious counter to your 'conditioning' argument is that in the way capitalism is organic it best reflects Natural Selection, a process that has been in action for the entire time that life has been in existence on this planet and therefore somewhat predates any social conditioning that may be occuring (and there's no doubt that it occurs, we're on a religious forum....).

Yes this points towards an agreement towards efficiency vs money.

Seeing that evolution is accepted would should understand that humans are just a different form of life, and since we all expect we are created from the same source ultimately we should included any life 'out there' in our solution.



Yes irl it failed because it perspective was limited, I suspect ion any living definition of it is.



Its the same reconciliation has having abundant recourses.


Yes i have issues with causality that I think counter that, but without refuting time, I think it can still be shown that just because it is our history doesn't mean we are doomed to it. I know that doesn't show it is in fact conditioning, but we might argue that the psyche we developed, inherited the belief or principle of survival of the fittest, which in time lead to our belief and enaction of social conditioning that furthers this unneeded trait.

Cooperation I would like to suggest will generally always be competition especially in the context we are discussing. Overpopulation is something cooperation might deal with better.

While communism at large has largely been spectacular failures, there are forms of communism with solid track records.

It has for example proved its mettle both in business (for example the cooperative) and smaller societies (for example the commune or the kibbutz). It should be noted however that Marxists would tend to disagree with these models, which share more of their ideals with Bakunin's communism.

Well it depends on the ideal and the utility, I think I would argue that an 'ideal' system that leaves exploited group that are separate from the system is not ideal. Then we could easily see no system has been a success thus far.

I think I only took a brief look at marxist communism. Really I've only done a small overview and will need to look at it all again. But I think I remember those like hitler, stalin, lenin, napoleon and the like, had no plans to free the world but only there peoples. Ghandi seems to fall under this somewhat as well, although he was taking on the tangible task of freeing his peoples from suppression and fighting amongst its separate groups, but it seems he took little or no stance against the suppression of the world.