- Define the world as being a problem
- Identify your assumptions in doing so
- Disregard these assumptions
Solved.
Denial?
Deny the problem exists and it won’t?
I think they call that Solipsism.
Ignore the problem and it controls you unseen and uncontested.
God == The uncontestable determiner of all things.
- Relax.
- Get over it.
- Put others first.
- Accept.
- Understand.
- Care.
I never said anything about the undesirability of problem identification. I love identifying problems. The whole world isn’t “a problem” though, hence the need to define it as one (in step 1) if one is to “solve” it - it only contains things that can be identified as patterns that can be seen as problems. It’s that that I like doing.
But even if I don’t identify problems, the worst I could suffer is pain and discomfort. If that’s something unbearable for you then you’re either in a position of serious impotence and abuse, or you’re particularly poor in spirit. That’s not to say that pain and discomfort don’t affect me and drive me to identify problems to solve, and it’s not to say that I don’t get a lot out of doing that, it’s just to say that it’s not necessary - meaning step 3 can be achieved by somebody who is in a rich enough position, spiritually and circumstantially, to love their fate.
It is richness in spirit to identify problems out of love, rather than out of necessity or compulsion, desperation or pity. The world isn’t necessarily a problem except to those who are compulsive, desperate or pitiful.
Solipsism is something different, btw. The world doesn’t claim to have a consciousness contrary to all empirical evidence on your part. Whether it is a problem, contains problems or not - this is not related to being Solipsist or otherwise.
Being controlled, unseen and uncontested, is something you cannot avoid as long as you believe in causality. Whether you believe in God or not, whether you are alone in the world or not, there are going to be causal factors internal and external to your body that you cannot control and that you cannot see or contest. It is only up to you to decide what arrangement you prefer, of everything you can see and contest - but you will never control everything (and why would you want to unless desperate? - why kill excitement and surprise?). It matters not how you achieve your preference as long as it is genuinely achieved.
Oh, and God doesn’t exist.
-
Sack the cops.
-
Eat the rich.
-
Practice empathy.
1.) Forget everyone but yourself(and mabye friends&family.
2.)Build a bunker.
3.) Stockpile supplies,weapons and ammo…ohh and wait for the apocolypse. 
The title is grammatically incorrect for the sake of simplicity. Surely, silhouette, you see my real meaning. The world has problems as much as one’s hypothetical daughter dieing of a curable cancer would have problems. Whatever political lean or philosophy, even nihilistic, we are compelled to achieve even the seeming absurd if not practical. It’s an invitation for creativity and with genuine purpose.
Step 1: Recognize that the solution is that there is no solution
Oh. Where black is white and bottom is top? How Matrixesque.
Illogical sentences can often be used as humor and can still get the point across.
CRH does fascinate me a lot. But I’m worried right now, in its current state as it’s written, it would do nothing more than the splinter effect (I don’t really know what to call the effect, so example . . . ) The major political party will have any number of competing parties but those competing parties will do little more than steal votes away from the major competing party. As a result, the major party almost always wins (and the major party will even fund campaigns for competing parties to induce the splinter effect). CRH in its incompleteness will gather some interest, but only such a small amount that it will only detract from other competing novel ideas.
In one word: Sensationalize.
War is a necessity for solidarity even though we think it’s such a terrible thing. Sensationalism is a necessity for public interest, even though we think it’s such a terrible thing. I don’t see any other hope for it. The beauty of electronic data is that you can have glitz and glamor without it having to be millions of dollars in special effects. It can be grand, sleek, and still just take some time and ingenuity. Give it eye candy and clowns and funny birdies. Human nature just isn’t as altruistic as we would sometimes like it to be.
Huh??
There is no voting unless someone proposes that a vote is the more rational thing to do on a particular issue. And that rationale would have to stand up against any proposed counter rationale in a logic-monitored debate.
What gains authority is the ability to be most rational, not how many people like an idea. That is the exact problem being addressed. If and only if you can propose something more rational, can you obtain authority over an existing idea.
That is the paradigm of socialistic control rather than rationality control.
This isn’t true by any standard I’ve ever been privy to. I live in GA, which is a dry state on Sundays [except for select counties now, I think]. Anyway, they just had a vote on this, and once again the idea to legalize alcohol consumption on Sunday was shot down. The decision was obviously that of the religious majority, and thus didn’t need to be rational. The decision for, and establishment of, that law was faith based. Logic still takes a back seat to the beliefs of a majority, in this case.
Yes, I’d agree with this. The idea that rationality determines authority is a ridiculous one, pre-supposing that everyone is purely rational in their decision making. This is the kind of nonsense that leads to ideas like free markets working better without State moderation.
Time and time again we see the overwhelming majority of decisions being made irrationally. Just because most people you surround yourself with are fairly rational, doesn’t mean the vast majority of people who you don’t associate with are too.
Rationality itself is dubious anyway, as I have no doubt that the religious majority in your example would think themselves perfectly rational in repeatedly shooting down the idea to legalise alcohol consumption on Sundays. From their principles they are rational, just as anyone who utilises rationality.
Those who judge the rationality of others do so by assessing the rationality from their own principles, because they see their principles as the most rational. And they are right to do so… according to certain principles.
CRH is perfect there is just one problem, it is logically impossible for it to start working. The now stablished ways of doing things will not allow for such a system to be implemented. It is also too complicated for populations to handle (intellectually demanding), it also assumes people are nice and cooperative.
Also notice that CRh does not solve problems, CRH lets things happen and then lets people decide how to act on the problems.
-
Make everyone believe in the same religion.
-
make everyone a philosopher.
-
Let those philosophers decide what to do.
Huh??
Quite the contrary. It only asks that people openly debate their reasoning and stick to what they resolve. How is that forbidden?
That only means that they will have to see an example, not try to figure it all out ahead of time. The same was true of the US Constitution.
How is that NOT solving problems??
Aren’t people the ones responsible for solving their problems on their own as much as possible? If not people, who is it that has been solving problems (I KNOW who has been creating them).
I’m not saying that you need to change CRH. I’m saying that you need a more provocative presentation. Look glamour sells, rationality doesn’t. That’s just how the world is. That’s not to say that people never listen to a rational idea. That is to say that if you want people to get more interest in the idea that you say is very rational, you have to sweeten the milk first. So why is that so terrible? Why not accept that fact and build a platform for CRH with a real striking appearance?
Oh HELL yeah. If I had that talent, it would already be history being made.
If you can accomplish or contribute to that, you would be doing yourself and the world a hell of a service. Despite short appearances of being eloquent, when it comes to really saying what needs saying, I suck at it (I feel like Moses at times - I need an Aaron).
So I am not the slightest resistant to suggestions or rewording. In fact, after the first write up, I told that Pasteur in charge of that little group to totally rewrite it into his own words, just DON’T change the essence. After a month of him sitting on it. He just asked for me to present it to the group. They signed off on it with the exception of one guy who wanted to be “Da Boss” and complained that the CRH didn’t mention God anywhere therefore wasn’t to be accepted. I tried to explain that if he wanted to do everything because “God told him to”, then simply propose that as the first amendment to their own version. Not a problem. But of course, his real complaint was that it negated his aspersions to be King.
The very first group MUST be formed of basically humble and altruistic people unafraid to admit errors if they were presented. After the first one, it won’t matter so much and eventually not at all.
But yeah, making it appealing and presenting it properly is essential. I considered even having certain psychological elements as a part of the fundamental structure, but couldn’t see how to include them without disrupting the essence. It must maintain that essence so as to remain a living and learning organism.