An Ideal Society

An Ideal society
must be comprised of ideal individuals
the moral and existential criteria for each ideal individual
is basic
[b]

Personal Criteria[/b]

Keep mentally and athletically fit
eat moderately
exercise daily into old age
hike and camp in Nature regularly
engage in a sport that maintains a strong arm and sure aim
give at least seven years of service to the nation
maintain a home in good order
plant a garden
hone and perfect a craft
keep a busy workshop
practice a fine art
stay current with events
continuously improve your intellect
practice a daily spiritual discipline

Is this ideal possible for each individual?
Absolutely!

Social Criteria

Take the same attitude to your home estate
as a king does towards his royal family and nation
Find a worthy wife and marry for life
rear and educate your own children in a secure home environment
make sure they too understand the personal criteria for an ideal life
instill within them a profound reverence
for ancestral effort
improve and sustain the family estate for future generations
cement a strong bond of mutual help and friendship
with your neighbors
do charitable out-reach
attend and support public functions
celebrate holy days

Is an ideal society possible for any nation?
Absolutely!

Every social economic system has its day
and then
as population growth impacts with increasing severity
on the environment
must give way to a more efficient way of life

This was so when hunter/gatherer territories
could no longer support family groups

When farm divisions
could no longer support clan groups

When industrial craftsmanship
could no longer support national groups

We are now at the stage when capitalist corporations
can no longer exploit international groups

Globalism ushers in a New Age paradigm
and demands a brand new economic criteria

The unification of all ideal nations
under the banner of global stewardship
is the obvious answer

Large scale planet management
and the devloppment of sustainable
energy
agriculture
and housing
is the new economic challenge

private ownership
and the wast waste of time and energy
sustaining its its laws and policing it
must end

The ideology of the Nuclear Age
must be based on Custodianship

The vast majority of mass production
is based on market competition
with hundreds of corporations producing the same commodity
this has lead to vast mountains of waste
Our teenage of competitiveness
is now over
ideal adults strive for perfection intuitively
our best is yet to come
and it must come from each individual

The management of the planetary environment
must be founded
on local administrations of individual eco-systems
with their boundaries determined by their own water tables
trade must be conducted
via the surpluses generated
in each system

An ideal
like all absolutes
is a human fabrication
with no value
in objective reality.

Morality is a human invention
applied upon perception
and social interaction.

IF there is a One cosmic consciousness
as you assert
how then is it possible
that individuals exist?

Why must a religious mentality
strive to construct
rules
which impose upon the joyous living of life
a conduct of behaviour?
Is not life
a desirable activity?
Are you so flawed that you need rules to enforce
your condition of living?

Is it felt
that humanity
must be forced
to live?
Is it felt that life
as only suffering
in the true religious manner
must be enforced
“for the good of all”?

Why must there be
a spiritual discipline
if all conscious organisms
are part of a One cosmic consciousness?

Communism is the instinct
of the incapable
to steal from those who produce
what the incapable are incapable of producing.

Survival of the fittest
is a natural necessity.
The incapable do not wish
to compete
in a game
where they do not know the rules.

Trade is conducted
as an exchange
of value for value.
Money is an abstract of value
which replaces
goods or services
when the trader in question
is not in possession of such.

Hydrological-based territorial demarcation
is a bizarre way
of classifying jurisdiction.

Sustainable eco-management
must revolve around its water reserves
both industry
and agriculture depend on it
Local knowledge of weather
and environmental balance
is essential

what is bizarre
is management via political boundaries
far removed from local conditions

as to the rest of your criticism
until such time as you have something constructive to offer
I have no comment

Why must
There be an ideal
Imposed upon reality
When reality
As it is
Is sufficient?

explain reality
as it is
it has confounded our best minds
for millennium
I am dying to hear your version

Idealism
always sounds childishly naive
and cynicism
always sounds adult

only one of them
is always right

If you do not yet
Even know
What reality is
Why then
Are you seeking
To impose
An ideal
Upon the object
Of your ignorance?

To humanity,
What is perceivable
Is reality.
Therefore,
That which is capable
Of interaction
And thus observation
And thus is demonstrably true
Is that which is “real”.

Human observation however
Should not be the ultimate judge
of objective reality.
There may be phenomena
incapable of interaction
which we cannot observe;
Absolutely inert bodies
which cannot affect,
nor be affected.

“Reality” is the extent
of our limited
Human knowledge.

“Rightness”
like “truth”
is a measure of the accuracy
of a premise
when compared
to the standard;
reality.

I have not claimed
you are incorrect.
I have questioned
your particular
ideals.

:unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused:
Under Hitler
the standard reality
was burn the jews
Under Stalin
it was execute all dissenters
rightness?
truth?

you and I
have different standards for ideal behavior
I will stay with mine
if you please
I suggest you post somewhere else

Reality is determined by moods. The universe does not care if we live or die.

The ideal society.

One in which everyone has the opportunity to give meaning to their life.

Why would we want to do that
if we are products
of an uncaring universe?

Well, suicide does seem like a rational response to the absurdity of life. But to deny this absurd life is to deny reality. You too are committing a form of suicide by covering up the absurdity of life. But to do this only misrepresents who people are.

Invocation
of Godwins Law
is not an effective way
of winning arguments.
You may wish
to consider
your chosen form
of debate.

Reality
is the standard
against which
human perception
is evaluated.

Stalin
and Hitler’s
interpretation of reality
is not a standard
but merely
an interpretation.

When the majority of a nation
accept that interpretation
it then becomes their standard

The ideals I listed
are beneficial to all
immutable
timeless
a basic standard of individual and social behavior
that can lead us all to a peaceful
and creative global society

Your objections
are counter productive
and add nothing to the debate
other than allow one to reiterate
the importance of the OP

An Ideal society is one that is favored by the cosmic process. Nature is always breaking down and destroying what its children Build.

Why is
it necessary
to type
like this?

Someone wants to seem overly comprehensible, as though what they say is so very simple and obvious like politicians do when they speak publically. But it doesn’t escape the astute that you are a short sighted moraliser. All these criteria are SO far abstracted from the motivations from, and circumstances within which they come about that it is obvious that you are far removed from reality. This is a common case amongst so-called philosophers: their thoughts wander only inside the sphere of comfort and optimising abstractions that amuse the thoughts of those living a comfortable and detached lifestyle. Tell Marx that this is not the type and kind of life you lead.

Incentive goes far far beyond the ‘moral’ dignation to be the best citizen that you can within a egalitarian or new-testament-style set of values. Motivations revolve soley around the means to continually produce your life and/or its surpassing as a real individual within your society, and historically this has already been shown to not always fall in line with egalitarianism or tolerance and indiscriminate benevolence.

You preach a dead, static, final set of inflexible rules: another common case amongst co-called philosophers. In proposing this ‘immutable’ and ‘timeless’ ideal (which is already proven wrong if you even glanced at the varied societies of present and past) you completely disregard the merits of its binary opposites, such as change, evolution and variety. Read some Nietzsche.

because it is no longer necessary
to save paper
or be concerned
with punctuation

The rest of your “astute” observations
add nothing to the dialogue
but leave us
with the same old same O

I practice
what I preach
or at least try to

Instead of regurgitating the banal
try and say something original and constructive
for a change
and become a practicing philosopher

Just because something’s not necessary anymore, doesn’t mean you have to change it. You’ve gained nothing by using your ‘new format’ other than having proven an extremely small point about the internet versus pen and paper.

You’re right that my comment is criticism so its focus is subtracting from your ideals, but considering the nature of them I’ve actually improved them by taking away from them. Your ideals are removed from realistic changes in attitude IN PRACTICE and they don’t cover the transition from what we have now to what you propose in a way that would properly appeal to everyone’s motivations. This is why it’s an atrocity of typical bourgeois abstraction and why I have to address it in such an urgent manner. Ideals need to be REALISED to actually exist.

So whilst you claim to practice what you preach, you won’t lead by example until you link everything realistically to other people’s real situations and real motivations that are directly linked to their means to produce their own life.

Anyway, enough of my taking away - now to address your accusation of my lack of originality, creativity and ‘adding to the dialogue’. At the end of my post you may have noticed my encouragement to allow flexibility and growth, which rigid sets of principles and ideals don’t allow… so in fact I’m encouraging a MORE original and creative approach than you.

Consider this: to whom is it preferable to NOT adhere to principles? It’s exactly the creative who create new ways to look at things outside rigid principles. You only support creativity in adbstracted word, not in realistic practice. Your ideals will do more to restrict mankind than to improve it. I propose change, rebirth and lack of boundaries - there, that’s my addition to the dialogue that you wanted. It is directly opposed to how your ideals would make their attempt to work in practice so you won’t like it, but there it is.

Those to whom the norm is not good enough and to those who’s bodies demand more of them than the safe and tolerating restriction of loving or caring for everyone equally until you have the atrocity of typical bourgeois abstraction of heaven for everyone, your heaven is hell. Phyiscal love IS unequal. The body DOES discriminate in order to stay alive in the most preferred way. Inequality isn’t just preferable, it’s essential and unavoidable. To socially advance, relativity says you must advance beyond another being who will, relatively speaking, fall behind. However this is not a bad thing - those who fall behind in 1 situation will find an alternative way to achieve and succeed out of necessity. This is the creativity that is born only out of inequality.

You speak out of naivety and the day that everyone has it equally good is the day that creativity dies.

You missed the larger point
that by breaking with old-fashioned convention
based on the conservation
of stone tablets
papyrus
linen
and wooden pulp
I am being original
and enjoying myself
by exploiting virtual space
with all the extravagance
formerly wasteful
but I will let that slide

convention dies hard
for those who are enslaved to custom :mrgreen:

So you are saying that my universal criteria
for ideal personal behavior
are the abstractions
of a 'bourgeois?

Shall we revisit them

Keep mentally and athletically fit
eat moderately
exercise daily into old age
hike and camp in Nature regularly
engage in a sport that maintains a strong arm and sure aim
give at least seven years of service to the nation
maintain a home in good order
plant a garden
hone and perfect a craft
keep a busy workshop
practice a fine art
stay current with events
continuously improve your intellect
practice a daily spiritual discipline

I did leave out
test one’s courage
and beg correction

Many would say
they are the basic attributes
of a devout hard-working peasant
who is a true nobleman at heart
It is what I expect from myself
and each of my children
and hopefully
from my neighbors

and I would say
that you are too lazy
and too aimless
to even think of practicing them
hence your objections

What do mean by “rigid” principles?
One cannot be a dilettante and bend principle
You either have them
as a foundation for guiding your conduct
and stick to them to the point of death
and beyond
or don’t have them at all.

Listen to yourself!
You are advocating unprincipled behavior
that would be chaos

A creative person may well not adhere to custom
and in that way lead us to a new social consciousness
but one without principles
would be a vagabond
and create nothing moral
or immortal

One cannot measure love
but we do know
one is a zombi without it

If you replace “inequality” with individuality
your point makes sense
otherwise it is unfairly divisive
offends the fundamental family value of meticulous sharing
and creates the wars
we are currently experiencing

One cannot measure goodness either
but we do know
that without it
ignorance rules

I’d quote sections of what you’ve written to refer to them more specifically as you have easily been able to do with mine, but it would make my post 10 times longer and I’d spend all day scrolling. I’m all for happiness and exploration, but I object to the persistent use of devices beyond appropriation. It just reminds me of the self-satisfied conceit of the petty who’re so blinded with the delight of having finally adopted a different approach to something ahead of any established trend that they feel the need to show off their approach repeatedly, even when it is far from complementary to the whole point of what they’re communicating, until everyone is sick of it. It permeates this thread obnoxiously and it’s ironic that you seem to skate around the accusation that I’m bound by my format. The irony is extended further by the amount of empty ‘air’ blowing around within these vast posts of yours inadvertently complementing the vacuous nature of the thoughts they contain.

I use rhetorical devices myself when writing if appropriate. Concise stabs suit my cutting points. The increased density of my word layouts mirror the impenetrable solidarity of my understanding. Not straying from certain customs all the time can show good taste. It is in bad taste and disrespectful of ancestry to persistently attempt to escape custom to overexaggerate your individuality, as though you think you are great and separate from the manifold historical factors that have contributed to your current situation, when in fact you are just blind to them. Your high-horse is so high, you daren’t jump off it.

Yes. Your entire list is a list of pursuits as though they were leisures that everyone can take for granted and indulge in if they see themselves as cultured enough. You’re so bourgeois you don’t even seem to be aware of different lifestyles to your own. None of the list is noble, except the one you had previously left out, ‘testing one’s courage’, which you immediately go on to sully with narcissistic displays of humility by exaggerating and prostrating yourself in servile apology. ‘Ignoble’ doesn’t go far enough here. Then you go on to illustrate further ignorance with your accusation of my aimless laziness in refusing to idiotically moralise. My objection is towards your objectional attitude that anyone who doesn’t organise narrow minded criteria to ‘sensibly’ structure their life’s practices is lower than you.

It seems being a vagabond here would actually benefit you so I definitely advocate unprincipled behaviour for one such as yourself. It would at least widen your experiences of life and give you an improved idea of totality. Maybe it would even thrust you into the life-giving rush of a bit of chaos. Your idea of moralising is in fact just a form of fascism. You prescribe rules to restrict everyone else to the knowable, sensible, restrained box of pacified dispassion because this is the only situation in which you feel protected and safe enough to hide in. You essentially outlaw the realms of explosive flourishes and chance because they’re not focused enough for you to cope with and you would feel scared in a world where they proliferated. What a world that would be, in the face of this one, where you could feel alive and well matched once again because everyone was as unrestrained as everyone else and capable to engage passionately with one another to their heart’s content.

We live in a weak rotting society where every weakness is doted upon and raised up to the accepted norm, such that we dissolve our minds with pity and prune all the new exciting growth clean off our bare wilting stalks, to at least be all weak together. To the strong this is hell, and your signature shows your blindness of what it is to be strong, NOBLE and capable. To reduce oneself in the face of such potential so that the incapable don’t feel outdone is frustrating beyond words. It’s a sick joke that nobility is now so commonly mistaken for equality.

Equally backwards is your notion that lack of goodness breeds ignorance. It is precisely your goodness that blinds you to the merits of what you have branded bad and evil and that makes you ignorant. You actually think that wars come from being unfairly divisive and unsharing. Further irony can be noted here with the observation of your unknowing divisive ways, separating you from those you are ignorant about and separating those who follow your principles from those who see the merits of freeing themselves from them.

You only seem to understand sharing as a meticulous moral imperitive. Real sharing is an uncontrollable release of need to bestow upon equals because of what they have given to you by simply being a life-giving match. This is love and I agree you can’t measure it. I would argue that you are the zombie here because you don’t recognise this kind of love, only a meticulous moral imperitive to share because it’s ‘right’. The kind of love that I here mention is the only source of creative immortality that has always been timeless. You aren’t creating here, you are restricting life to focus on one area of it as morally principled and thus deny the totality of love by outlawing part of it as morally ‘wrong’.

Phewph. I think that’s me done, I do love passion. Now just imagine if I typed all that out without punctuation and with one or two words per line, perhaps even justified to the middle or right of the page to further explore the freedom of the internet post haha.