Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jean-Baptiste Guillory's avatar

Excellent observation, however, like my posts, your musing is beyond the intellectual reach of most public schooled people. They can't grasp it, they just can't. If its not something shiny, or flashing dangling in their faces they can't factor it. Now if its something that requires actual critical mental processing, something that requires pragmatic deduction, then they are lost. They shut down. Nothing currently plaguing society would be possible if not for the dummies of academia, and its disciples of public school, who parrot the academic mantras. Even on this platform. There is a small cadre of intellectuals, but most are satisfied to repeat the popular topics of the day, never grinding down into the reality of it all, or the root causes of their torment.

"With slavery, we shipped the labor here, but with colonialism, we can just ship the work there." Most people don't grasp the fact that "slavery" was not imported Africans, but rather American Negro Indians who were already here. The first "slaves" in colonies were Pre-Colonial Whites and American Negro Indians. The colonies supported themselves by enslaving the local populations of Indians captured in Wars (King Phillips War). It was rinse and repeat, all over New England. Only a total of 92000 "Africans" were brought here in 400 years. In fact, there was so many Negro Indians that they were captured and shipped out. They were shipped to the Islands, Europe and they even sent them to Africa (Liberia), any place to lower the populations. The ones who remained were re-classified, over generations, via census records, from Indians, to Indians not taxed, free people of color, mulatto, octroon, quadroon, creole, negro, black and now "african." (They tried that with my family, but we had the documents) From Ben Franklin onward the plan has always been to get rid of us, steal our estates, steal our land and change us from aboriginal Indians into foreign Africans. Slavery as espoused by academia is a lie. The "out of africa" theory was created by a Eastern European, Melville Herkovitz, who taught the lies to academia. "Roots" was a fraud, a book stolen by Alex Haley from a White author. He was sued and he settled, the judge calling it a "hoax." History is a lie, agreed upon. Regards.

Expand full comment
Perspectives's avatar

I'LL MAKE TWO POSTS. ONE GENERAL, AND ONE FOCUSED ON OUR CONVERSATION.

Purpose

Some say that there is no purpose to life, Others swear by supporting their religion as their main purpose. I am sure there are rewards from both ways of looking at it. But I think that we can impute a purpose for everyone.

1. I want to start with some very broad generalizations, to see where they lead. So please don't bother looking for exceptions.

Mankind's "doing" is purposed to support his needs. Therefore man's thinking and talking are also purposed to fulfill his needs. My needs might already be fulfilled. Then my thinking and talking, (and doing) are to ensure that nobody moves to erode this fulfillment.

The big problem comes when my needs have been fulfilled at the expense of somebody else. Then my thinking and talking are to deny this with all of my possible might. This group has many topics which are considered "no-go-zones", which is a major part of their denial. So we have two major groups, (see Marx), those that are underprivileged, who's thinking and talking are all about justice and righting these wrongs. And those who are already well-off (or medium well-off), who think the status quo is good for everyone, (if you just apply yourself). They want to talk about endless diversions. They have thousands of interests that they will try to engage with you, and yes, they are interesting.

2. Many people might not understand what I am inferring, so I'll make a few definitions. Ancient man first raided, (stole surpluses), then they traded. I am sure Asian people traded, but I don't know about them, so I will talk about the West. Europeans were early traders (and raiders), after the Crusades. Surpluses of wealth came out of this trade, and out of that developed the "reasoning behind capital". Basically it is simple; "Don't spend it, but make it grow". This is the origin of today's capitalism. Europe is a land of light skinned peoples, so we can call this commercialism the "white man's heritage".

A good portion of these Europeans, "white men", built their capital by any means deemed legal at the time, and on through the ages. This included trading, stealing, colonialism, enslavement of non-whites, and any kind of oppression or genocide that they could conceive of for outsiders. Their prime means were the high investments in the technology of weapons, so they could easily dominate the world.

If you live in the west, or work with western corporations, you live under white-man's privilege, no matter what the color of your skin. (Probably everyone reading this blog.) You might say that was yesterday, and today it is different. I'll just give one example:

The west believes in free trade. For those countries that have import duties, the US will force their markets open. That means the west will sell all of its surplus product, and the importer will be denied the opportunity to make those products for themselves, (or grow that food). The net effect is that the west exports primarily its unemployment, and in the second priority, some products. The importer suffers the same unemployment that the west has avoided, and maybe more.

No matter what sector your work in the west, your business benefits by the vibrant economy of (a more) full employment.

3. So now we have two groups and two ranges of topics. Both these groups use humor. The Have-Not's use humor as irony, and relief from what is not working in their lives. They say that there can be a comical nature of something, or word pictures can provide amusement, appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous, or a sudden unpredictable, or unreasoning inclination, an incongruous quality causing amusement.

I would have to write another post to analyze what is humor, but basically if our government leaders do something that even a high-schooler knows will not work, we can laugh at them for being so stupid.

BUT REALLY THEY ARE NOT STUPID, WE ARE THE STUPID ONES. Because we expect that they should be doing something for our benefit (for society), when they work only for the oligarchs that pay them and put them into office.

The other group, the "Have's", uses humor both to denigrate the Have-Not's, when talking among themselves, and to divert the have-not's attention from the inequality that is growing like a tidal-wave.

4. So if we are to engage together here in a dialog, which ranges of topics should we consider? Should we talk about that part of the world that doesn't favor peoples needs and lifestyles, and why? Should we talk about all the myriad of diversions and interests, and justify that they are beautiful scientific discussion (which they no doubt are)? Or should we just stick with humor and see if we can spend the rest of our days laughing among ourselves, and at everyone else who are too dumb to laugh like we do?

I suggest that whatever we talk about, we need to make judgments about the parameters that we come up with. Those judgements (or choice points), need to have a benchmark of comparison. We may not agree on our topics, nor on our conclusions, but it would be a head start if we could agree on some benchmarks of judgement.

Most people use the benchmark of "the truth". But of course we won't agree on that, so let's find something else. Again, my suggestion; but let's say that the human lives in a society, so whatever is good for me, but not damaging for society, (nor nature), could be our choice points.

In other words we examine the pretty-clear trajectory that a certain belief will put us on, and imagine what ends will result from behaving in that way. Please notice that I did not say we should "fix the world", but I only said we shouldn't damage society (or nature), nor be sucking someone else's blood.

CAN WE AGREE ON THIS STANDARD? That will make a big difference in our conclusions.

5. Notice in 4., I have moved away from asserting what is the "truth", (for me). All the truths down through the ages are now the basis of jokes. I think that our truths will suffer the same hilarious fate.

So I suggest the same process we discovered in #4. That in lieu of the truth, we always use our probable future trajectory, (whether personal or collective), for adopting beliefs or making decisions. We do have stated objectives, or we do know where we want to go, so is that trajectory (based on our truth) counterproductive to these objectives? If so, DON'T ADOPT IT.

6. I have said that false-cause always undermines the situation to be worse, or that there are ample unintended side-effects. False cause comes from our imperfect understanding of the circumstances, and from our distorted points of view. Humans have a limited window of observation, even with instrumentation, because we have evolved the tools for our survival in simpler times.

One of our distortions is our erroneous view of time and time-lines. Probably most people will admit that there is no place called yesterday, nor no place where the future is now residing and is on its way to join our present time. Both these concepts are based on our memory capacity, the past directly on memory, (and written histories), and the future as a projection of the past trajectories, again from our memory. But yet we are fully immersed in talking through the shorthand of past and future, like they are the essence of progression and change.

Past - Present - and Future seems linear. Hence we search each sequence for a linear cause and effect, which may be the furthest thing from reality. One alternative might be that related things arise together. Then there is no cause and there is no effect. People want a "beginning" to everything imaginable. What does that search (or invention) give to you? I say, only false cause, and all the resulting problems that we are now living through.

ALLOW MYSTERY into you life.

7. So with our hyper-resolve to find cause and effect, with all the possible misconceptions, of course everything seems very, very complicated.

In fact, with very little research into the conventional wisdom about problems, you can list reams of factors that have to be considered. It is the mal-working of mathematical models. At first they don't fully describe the situation. So they need a patch. A patch is another side formula that takes care of that perceived extra movement. That side formula requires more variables (unknowns to solve for), which are considered as additional "degrees of freedom".

Wow, it gets complicated fast. But with "super-computers" you can solve for dozens of variables in some reasonable time. Most typically you get dozens of solutions too, but then you can choose the ones that make the most sense, (or those that make the most money for your benefactors).

If many related things were seen as arising together, in a greater matrix of relationships, perhaps many things could be simplified. That is only one way that I propose, but I don't know the greater workings of the universe. We could seek to:

SIMPLIFY EVERYTHING THAT WE TALK ABOUT. At least to the best of our ability, and leave mystery where it seems going toward the intractable.

8. That brings us to our two groups, Haves, and Have-Not's. I propose that the Have's, in order to avoid any concrete action that will denigrate their privilege, will always try to complicate everything. If really forced into action, they may choose one of the inconsequential factors to work on, and then say, "see, we spent all that money trying to do some good, but it just doesn't work. What we have now is the best that we can do."

AT LEAST THOSE ARE MOTIVES TO WATCH FOR IN OUR ARGUMENTATION.

.

Expand full comment
14 more comments...

No posts