I’m not sure how the rational creates the irrational
Except by irritating the crap out of those one tries to reason with, of course. 
Being rational is relative to what people want. When you want something that’s when you think and rationalize getting what you want. Then you can define being irrational in opposition to that.
When one forgoes his personal wants for the need to maintain an overall concept of rationality among all, he’s trying to be un-rational at best, neither thinking this way nor that.
Could you give me an example? I must be missing something…
@JSS… Your system, governed by the Constitution of Rational Harmony, as i undertand it, assumes humans as ideal Vulcans. If the acceptance of that system is voluntary, how would you explain (or convince) people to accept it? When i try to visualize someone explaining the masses how it’s the best system and how it’s for their own good, i can see them nodding their heads in approval and agreeing - as soon as the explainer leaves, they get an amnesia and go about their bussiness in the old way, as if nothing happened… We must not forget that most people do first, explain later. If human beings valued rationality as much as it’s claimed - that “rational harmony” you’re talking about would have been achieved long time ago.
…like the second part of my post.
Excellent point.
The beauty of each Constitution (CRH) is that it applies only to the few members of each group and doesn’t apply at all to those without a group. If you and perhaps the other members of this forum were to band together so as to support all of your lives through such a rational decision making process, how much would you really care about what other people use to make their decisions? I’m certain there is a need to care to some degree, but the CRH allows for other people (the “irrational”) to do as they choose to do while any small group chooses to do better for itself. Is there a need for the rational people to suffer under the constraints imposed by the irrational?
The CRH does not presume the ancient and ever lasting sin of forcing the masses to conform to what the elite believe to be wiser. The elite might very well be correct in what they think, but forcing people or tricking them against their will merely propagates the ignorance and in the long run creates disharmony, misery, dissension, and war. The CRH does not assume that tricking the irrational people into compliance is wise, but nor does it forbid it. The CRH merely requires that if such a notion is to be accepted, it must stand to rational debate and prove itself as not only a good idea, but the best idea available. And it must constantly maintain that position throughout its reign despite the vast updating of ideas and evolution of situations.
Every good idea must maintain its goodness or be immediately replaced with the better. I am certain that at times, the older good idea would return as the new good idea as situations changed. That is what being conscious is all about - being alert and changing to suit the situation.
IF you had a small group of rational friends all dedicated to serving the group through such a rational process, even if nothing else was different in the world, would you be better off than you are now? It only takes one such small group.
You see, if even a single group demonstrates that group rationality and the CRH work to cause the harmony of its members as well as propel the entire group into stronger and more promising life, don’t you think those watching might get the hint even if they are still a little irrational themselves? It isn’t really a question of homosapians being innately irrational. It is a question of “monkey see, monkey do”.
Exactly true. Thus don’t try to reason with them - SHOW them.
That is the immature perspective.
When a child makes excuses to get what he wants (not really knowing why he really wants it), it is called “rationalizing”. That word really means merely making up some seemingly rational story to justify your passions.
Rationality refers to actually having logically indisputable reasons for your actions. It requires that you have a chosen (and documented in this case) goal and debate proof steps to get to that goal. “Making excuses” won’t cut it.
The need to comply to the vast many is what is being removed by the CRH. If you personally don’t see the rationale of the small group of which you are a member, you are free to go find another more to your liking or even go start your own. It is much like changing jobs when you no longer feel hope in what you are doing. With the CRH, you are free to go start your own business.
You would think so, wouldn’t you? But it really doesn’t. You see it doesn’t really matter if the people cannot think rationally when they begin the effort. IT is only required that they try enough to utilize the system, the CRH. As they attempt to justify their passions, they discover the reasoning behind their own passions. They begin to discover that there really is good rationale for many of the things that they thought were merely hidden desires. ALL passion, all ideas, all “angels” are brought into the light and seen for what they are. Most are far more deserving than they are given credit. But when some passion is seen as not rational, it can only be due to something else being seen as more rational and having proven itself to be so. If it cannot be seen as the best idea available, it cannot be allowed to reign.
Even an animal stops wanting for something when it realizes that something is harming it more than helping it. The CRH helps to bring into the light what is actually helping or harming at a pace that the members can see. It creates a harmony at the very root between the cognitive and the subconscious, the mind and the heart.
By no more than demonstration and answering questions when asked. Compliance of others and proselytizing is NOT required. Do your internal organs change their ways because other people want your body to function differently or because other people choose to function differently (I imagine you would hope not)?
Oh I agree completely. Now what would you imagine takes place when the “explainer” is explaining how it is that this small group is not only healthier and happier, but is also much more wealthy? Do you really think that wealth is gained by being Irrational?
And more importantly, how critical is it that other people do as you do? If I were the explainer, it is only out of compassion that I would explain at all. Why should I care how silly other people choose to be? In general, it would probably make it all the easier to become more wealthy for me. I understand the Kabolic ways of using the ignorance and foolishness of others. I just prefer to go a better direction.
Okay … so what do you do when your growing child shows a penchant for something not in accordance with your group’s shared beliefs and practices? Dump him off in another group that aligns with the child’s natural endowment, or force it to seek your approval?
With the latter the child is reared learning the need to be approved. Needing approval is tantamount to saying, “Your view of me is more important than my own opinion of myself.” … and where is the harmony in a neurotic adolescent?
You see, the child has no freedom due to the fact that he cannot take care of himself. And don’t you think it would be highly irrational for parents to give up their child to another group? So from the start a child is encased in what is imposed by the parents group.
You should make that bolded part a part of your signature. The use of “fear of disapproval” is oppressive, malignant, and intentional. Embarrassment and reputation are what allows the few to exercise mass influence over the many. But it doesn’t merely oppress people into compliance. It also distracts the mind from learning, attending, remembering, and thinking. A person too scared of being rejected cannot allow himself to accept a truth statement that he feels might not be approved by his peers or ethos authority. It is an ancient and predominant means to control both behavior AND thought. It causes anxiety, insecurity, rebellion, and depression. It is the act of a true terrorism governance (“People should never have to fear their government…”).
Parental authority, another good issue…
The first question to ALWAYS answer to yourself on any issue;
Do you prefer to;
A) Be allowed to do what YOU believe to be rational
B) Be force to do what YOU believe to be irrational
C) Be forced to do what someone very far away has deduced is the wisest for ALL people to always do?
In the case of child rearing, are you a member of a small group that proposes to let any child of the age of 6 do as they please? age 12? age 18? age 31? OR perhaps (my preferred) after passing a maturity test (AFTER people have learned how to test for such things - could be a while in itself)?
The point isn’t which was is THE right way for ALL people. The point is merely of which group do you prefer to be a member realizing that you have direct input as to what the laws are to be. Your “vote” in a sense, is merely 1 out of 20 rather than 1 out of 100 million (or more).
Don’t you think that the time for a child to be free from parental rule should be determined by the child’s individual need for such? I would think that different group education rules would play a role in such matters as well.
Realize also, that at any age, anyone can introduce any idea to challenge the incumbent ideas. The ideas are not restricted as to where they originate. Thus if a child at the age of 12 years happens to have a brilliant notion (or merely believes that he does), he is welcome to present it (with or without a sponsor helping with his presentation). Such an environment causes automatic learning by the children of exactly why the group is doing what they are doing. The reasoning behind every rule is not merely constantly exposed, but constantly being examined by the most imaginative members for possible improvement. No one has to go out and collect 100,000 votes in a campaign just to attempt to overthrow the House majority leader’s prejudiced rulings.
When mistakes are discovered in any method of governing, almost instant changes are forced as soon as it was discovered as a mistake. Nothing can be assessed as a mistake unless something different has been discovered as better. Literally over night, the group can adjust to the wiser method. Within a week, an entire nation might see that same light and be changed. And it all might be by the voice of a 12 year old girl who just happened to see a valid point that no one else had considered.
The BEST ideas rule, NOT the most famous, oldest, or most privileged. “Not invented here” doesn’t apply.
Sure why not? They’re not much concerned with why they should conform to anything. They have no thoughts about a better state of affairs to coexist with other kids in. They are completely at terms with life as it is. The world exactly as it is is their world, no desire to change it or themselves and they freely express themselves in it. Not a bad way to live, huh? We could learn a lot from them.
If your group has determined that to be what seems most rational to them and you, who would I be to prevent you from doing it?
In reality, I imagine that in short order, your group would see more reasoning on the matter, but the point is that YOU get to see the reasoning and YOU get to engage in counter reasoning proposals. It is not reasoning that is forced upon you by outsiders (at times literally on the opposite side of the world). Go try to change the legal age of adulthood - good luck.
The G20 (currently controlling all money throughout the West) must control all things that affect their money… that includes what children are to think and believe. That is what you are living under currently. But who are the G20? By what priority do they set their standard for child rearing? If you came up with a better idea, could you even get the idea into their hands at all, much less convince them that it was better?
If any one group attempts what you suggest, all groups eventually get to see what happened and thus can then choose for themselves.
The IDEAS compete, not the ARMAMENTS.
Ideas are basically thought processes that achieve what a person wants. in this case: mazimizing pleasure in each group.
Since you have said that a person votes 1 of 20 people (a small group) this means that the groups decision only applies to the people inside the group. Since rationale is that which is more effective to get what you want what is to stop any group concluding that they should kill (war against) other groups as an easy way to get resorces. Will other groups attack back? What if other groups saw killing the prior group the most effective way to mazimize pleasure.
Since the objective is to maximize personal pleasure in any group, it means that the ideas will be geared towards that. Not only would ideas compete but so would the individual pleasure of each group aswell. If there are no constraints in this then this could lead to war as war could be seen as the most rationale, most effective way, to get what you want.
This you then say not be rationale but rationalizing:
Politics is about getting what you want and the system is geared towards that objective. Who has a logically indisputable reason for their actions? What is absolutely and perfectly good? What is indisputable goodness? It will all depends on the person which is asked since the system is geared towards maximizing pleasure.
Also how rational any society is would depend on how well educated that society is, but is not education a sort of conditioning students are taught what they “need to know”, who would determine this? How are you adressing this?
This form of goverment is very similar to one I had in mine one which is self actualizing but the problem is that then there is no central form of goverment apart from the ideology that every person should be rational. However, what is a rationale want? The only one I can think of is gaining knowledge,(innate curiousity). As you say:
But why should a monkey do something if it does not get him what he wants?
“Desire is the source of all irrationality,”
Ideas don’t necessarily accomplish anything and are often what defeats what a person wants. Ideas are a bit like tools or technology, they serve whoever uses them to the degree and end to which they are used.
Again, the first thing to ask yourself concerning any issue…
Do you prefer to;
A) Be allowed to do what YOU believe to be rational
B) Be force to do what YOU believe to be irrational
C) Be forced to do what someone very far away has deduced is the wisest for ALL people to always do?
In the case of thoughts of war. Do you want to be conscripted into a war that someone far away chose to make into war without even knowing why or what you are really fighting about (Vietnam)?
If your group has chosen to go to war, they have to have published their reason for doing so and any opposing ideas have been rationally defeated. Thus the suggestion is that they really should be going to war since no one can come up with a reason NOT to.
But in addition, by the thought that others might instigate war with or without reason, it makes sense that other groups would take rational measures to defend themselves in the most rational way. Why would you want them to do anything else? Currently in the US, the government has altered to make it illegal for citizens to defend themselves in any respect at all. That has happened because THEY worked out rationale that suited THEM, but you didn’t. They now keep you irrational, confused, misinformed - weak and subjugated.
The CRH merely introduces a mechanism that enforces rational thought (and thus behavior) for ALL people without presuming what it is that is rational for all people. It allows for them to figure that out for themselves while remaining a team and a community/family.
The mechanism simulates the living, thinking process, but as a group, a living entity made of living people (rather than the machines being designed to replace you).
Don’t leave out the issue of survival so that such “pleasure” (I prefer “joy”) can be obtained. The real measurable target is the maximum integral sum under the curve of measured joy. Without measurement, progress gets very difficult. The Science of Joy is crucial in designing a heavenly environment.
By who’s rationale is that?? Certainly not mine. If your group chooses to war with mine for “fun”, you can pretty much bet I am going to ensure that it is going to be far from fun for your group.
Not only that, but all I really have to do is introduce a contrary idea concerning more joy through peace (easy enough to do) and your group is obliged to debate the validity and conform to the better rationale. War is almost never the truly better idea. War comes about due to Socialism - the effort to control more than your share of life.
Currently, that is what you are living under - political decision making based on passion voting and decption manipulating of the masses for the benefit of aristocratic overlords.
Perhaps you misunderstand something;
Rationale refers to the logical steps laid out to achieve a chosen goal. The goal itself is not subject to logic unless it is some former rational sub-goal. Example;
What are we to eat for dinner tonight, Pizza?
I don’t like pizza, what else do we have?
Well, we can have hamburgers instead
Okay, I like hamburgers
Okay, done, hamburgers it is.
Now, believe or not, that was a rational process, not because hamburgers are better for you or superior in any way other than the revealed fact that they were preferred over pizza by the only people involved. Would your group be deciding every meal for every one? I would hope not. Thus what is rational is up to those involved and INCLUDES their passions/desires. The logical part of the process was merely the discovery of what was available and the short discussion of who preferred which. Both were willing to have hamburgers, THEREFORE hamburgers it is.
Someone could foil the simplicity of those two by introducing the more complex issue of health or physique. If those ideas are introduced, then again, they include those thought into deciding which final choice to make consider ALL that they want, not merely which tastes better.
The smaller the group, the more diversity is available. The larger the group, the more founded the decisions but less tailored to individual needs. The needs of the one can easily outweigh the needs of a small group, but almost never the needs of a larger group.
That issue is first constitutionally addressed by demanding that an understanding of the constitution itself is required (as noted in article (1)). But after that, it is up to the group to rationally decide how much of which education is most rational for their situation. Would it make sense to have farmers studying finance, medicine, physics, religion, basket weaving, scuba diving…? What suits people in one region is not what suits people in another. Let them decide which education is best for them as long as they maintain a learning mechanism so that they can discover and correct for any prior poor choices.
Rational desires are those that maintain the harmony between what you think and what you have urge to do. Creating wild urges is easy and serves your masters. But such urges must be divided from your rational thoughts if you are going to continue serving an interest that is not serving you. What serves you best (the MOST rational) is that which keeps you in harmony with yourself - mind and heart harmony. That which stays in harmony CANNOT perish.
The CRH ensures that the monkey doesn’t even try until he decides that it IS what he wants. The idea being discussed at that time was why anyone would comply. I stated that you let them see a demo of how it works and If they like what they see (you being more wealthy than they) THEY will decide to do what works on their own - no force necessary.
The real-world issue is that people tend to want to USE other people’s weaknesses in order to gain power for themselves. The CRH defeats selfishness at its core.
Even more specifically, PRESUMPTION is the source of all error in desire.
Ok, this structure looks workable, “As long as the higher governance merely ensures that the lower groupings are following a rational learning process.” But where are these groupings situated? Are each group segregated, with their own means of subsistence? If they are segregated, how are the consequences of one group which adversely affect another group controlled? For example, one group builds a dam that stops the flow of water, which is the only source of water for the group downstream? It would be rational to control a resource for the benefit of your own group.
Preferably, but not necessarily. It always depends on what is most rational by their own openly viewable assessment. The same three concerns apply to every issue;
Do you prefer to;
A) Be allowed to do what YOU believe to be rational
B) Be force to do what YOU believe to be irrational
C) Be forced to do what someone very far away has deduced is the wisest for ALL people to always do?
In the case of how connected and dependent you are to your group, I would think that the more connected you are the better, but hey, who ever said I dictate rationality. Maybe it is wiser that some groups are very loosely connected. I know it is important than some members be a member of more than one group. This is what allows for absolute security against “social cancer” (people pretending to be what they aren’t).
The inter-connectivity of groups has a sane scheme to it, “4-dimensional stitching”. But that is not a requirement of the Constitution because the CRH concerns itself merely with each fundamental element. The inter-connectivity ends up, rationally, looking very similar, but such is not required to be designed before hand. Let Reality lead the way once you have a means for following it - CRH. The groups figure out on their own how to best communicate and cooperate and to what degree.
Again;
Do you prefer to;
A) Be allowed to do what YOU believe to be rational
B) Be force to do what YOU believe to be irrational
C) Be forced to do what someone very far away has deduced is the wisest for ALL people to always do?
In the case of diminished resources…
Currently there are public parks. Why? Who made that decision? Wasn’t it the result of proposing an action and having people debate the pros and cons until a decision was made? The park serves whom?
If a group of all males somehow decided that going around raping all of the females in the other groups was their most rational course of action, what do you imagine would be the first thing that would really happen once they tried? Many groups can cooperate as they see fit. But the point is that it is how THEY see fit, not how one small group over in a foreign land sees fit.
If ten groups recognize the danger coming from one group, what is to stop those ten from exercising against that one? Wouldn’t that be RATIONAL?
Now if the ten for some reason could not protect themselves from the one, don’t you think you would have been screwed anyway? Isn’t that happening to the degree it can already? How are you any more protected under any other scheme? Currently any such decisions are made at best in the same way, but usually not even as well because some masters don’t really care (the G20) and many prefer such conflicts as it allows for them to manipulate and extort from their human property/resource (fear is a great motivator for free human energy/money).
The point is that each group does merely what seems to make the most sense. They are merely being required to document and uphold their reasoning for doing so. Nothing is bared except insanity. Form 100 groups into an army if that seems to be the most rational thing to do. But disband it as soon as that seems more rational.
So would there be a mechanism for introducing a topic of debate into another group?
Well I think the easiest would start with something like, “Hey YOU over there, why don’t you…”
Don’t make it harder than it is. If no one in a group thinks that an outside idea is worth representing to the Senate, I suspect the idea isn’t going to make it regardless. Unfortunately there might really be valid times or circumstances wherein outside voices really shouldn’t be heard for a time (most rationally speaking). I would think that most of the time, by far, the idea of hearing outside voices would be seen as more rational from the get go. Hearing only one’s own voice is a very hard case to defend. The group is a living entity. I suspect it has rational cause to be a social being, not a hermit.
Even when people form groups that only speak in private, they unknowingly delude themselves into false presumptions, misunderstandings, and condemnations. Being closed, is an insidious way to create insanity yet it IS what is controlling Man today. Do you ever get to see WHY the G20 or the Homeland Security makes their decisions? Yet those people control your lives. You can’t give them valid feedback until you know their reasoning.
I think the issue is really one of having any idea being represented by a member. A group that allows outsiders to invade their parliament irresponsibly, is asking for trouble (much like never banning anyone regardless of them flooding your server). It would be like foreign nationals making your laws for you (oh yeah, that is the way it is now, huh 
).
I would prefer to leave that issue to the groups to discern the most rational way to handle it. If some group got too closed off and became a problem, I am sure the other groups could wake them up.
Very well by definition your system is perfect since nothing is constant and abides with the general rule of existence that everything changes.
Your system could last forever and never fail.
Selfishness is an inhenrent constant on all humans, helping others stems from the need to cooperate to achieve certain goals, ultimately it is still due to an assumed personal benefit. Which leads me to this.
Your system will likely never fail, since it does not establish failure.
However, it does not prevent actions such as war to take place, instead it lets people by trial and error to find out for themselves what is more convinient to them. This trial and error process makes for an unnecessary waste of resources. For example, let us say a group fights another, a lot of people die, resources are tarnished, war is established as irrational and thus not rational.
The current generation will have a far more vivid notion of what war is but the next generations will have an ever dimished notion of what war is like since they are less affected. Over generations this “fear” of war will disappear and lead to another war.
Since the system fails to prevent events that happen it will at some point be replaced with something else.
General rule of motivation: the human being will always seek to order the disorder.
Seeing that you use presumption often, could you define presumption for future reference seeing that we are likely to engage in discusion quite often.