Solve the world in 3 steps.

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
41

The problem does not reside on that but on the system itself. It is impossible to divorce actions from emotions, motivation principle, as such the only way in which a society ( group of people) will follow the system is because they believe it is the convinient way to do things. Now how are you to convince the now dominant oligarchy to relent there wills and power to the better rationale?

The only way in which your system would be implemented is when the current system fails. Now in the scenario that the current system fails the implementatiion of your system would be almost impossible since a failure of the system would destroy the wealth and thus, power of the peasant (workers ) population and thus, living the oligarchy with the power, ( which they already have).

Now, by familiarization rule, any person who does survive debacle of the current system will be conditioned to think in the way that they previously did (speaking in general terms). Any new society would have to be a strong resemblance of what already failed, even when the system itself failed. You CRH is a remake of US constitution but it is really not because to its core US constitution is based in the seek of happiness, yours is the seek of rationale harmony, your social system would have to conditioned by catharsis and promote ratinale thoughts. However, catharsism is impossible to condition someone to be unemotional would mean to place another emotion in to the person. Stricly saying , no one can be unemotional (only new born babies), it is logically impossible.

In this case you have two optons:

  1. Leave people be.
  2. Condition people.

If you choose two you would run into the problem that every previous civilazation has had.

You have chosen one, but this is unrealistic.
This is because your system has no essential stucture other than let be. If you let be what do you think people would do?
That which their emotions want them to do. Since their is no conditioning your system would be very chaotic, their could hardly be any organization since their woulkd be, at the start, a massive organization of states. However, since any state can at any moment break from the central goverment, and the central goverment role is undefined. It is hard to plan for the future and thus, organize. Also your proposal assumes that their is ilimited land for everyone, which is unrealistic. Once the available land is used up where do you think somone trying to start their own republic will go?

I mispoke there I meant prevent problems from happening. CRH is basically let people decide state. However, what you will find out is that by doing so you will eventually come back to the place where you started. Your system assumes people are progressively actualizing. If the current system fails alot of the already attained knowledge will be lost, and so will the ability of people to stay in harmony.

There are other problems but lets deal with these ones first.

42

I think that you misunderstand. I am not proposing that THEY do anything, but rather YOU.

You (and others like you) can simply form your own constitutional gathering based on rational debate and stick to it. “They” will most likely appreciate the fact because it allows for your group to be predictable and reliable (trustable). Some politicians would want your group to go one way or another, but they all can see what you are actually going to do and thus they all prefer to be able to predict your group. If they want to change your mind, and they see a good rational argument, guess what - they participate merely by suggesting their rationale for their preference. They don’t have to join your group. And they don’t have to try to persuade your group with complicated political and psychological antics.

What you don’t apparently understand is that rational harmony IS happiness. Joy comes from the perception of accomplishing what is perceived as the most good (rational) even if it is mistaken.

No, emotions get confused due to misunderstandings that are derived from not understanding why a person is being treated as they are. The CRH allows the cognition to comprehend the reasoning behind the rules. If that isn’t sufficient, the people are allowed to debate until satified or simply go start their own little group. Thus the inspiration to rebel is dissolved and the perception of achievement is satisfied, hence MORE joy, more happiness.

On top of that, by the inherent cooperation, more things actually get accomplished and thus again, more incentive for more joy and happiness. If someone is unhappy, all they need to do is figure how to resolve that and propose it. That is what they would have to do anyway except with CRH, they have a way to enforce their preference without having to go inspire votes.

Not really.
All that is needed is for one group to actually do the process and others to see it working. No “conditioning”.

You are presenting a dichotomy of people either being 100% emotionally chaotic or 100% stoically rational. People are not that way. The CRH provide for a diversity of groups wherein each group is of like-minded people. They are not forced to be that way, they are simply chosen into the group (or visvrsa).

No, because the system requires the documenting and public display of all prior activity. That causes learning that otherwise doesn’t take place. The system inherently causes progressiveness.

43

Ok. So if I understand correctly, CRH doesn’t really have any internet home for the moment. Just a few blogs of sorts. And we’re interested in making it a little more formal to the public. Not that I’m great with formality or web design, but there are at least a few ideas for improvement. I have to work but let me see what I can do today.

44

Wow, that would be great… turn it into your own.

I think Internet only functioning is going to be limited in many respects, but I can’t see why it couldn’t still work. The CRH actually has a small built-in purpose function, otherwise, without something like a small business to run, there aren’t really any significant decisions to make. A group has to have a purpose for being a group. Even though society already supplies that purpose (to survive what society is throwing at you), it is often difficult for people to see the benefit of having a group or team working together. People strongly fear being a “joiner” (left over psycho effect from the 70’s Chaos incentive).

45

I’ve done nothing with the page so far, but as it stands anyone can publically edit the page. Later if we get the ball rolling I’ll restrict it to certain members so that vandals can’t come and delete it all.

tinyurl.com/constitutionrationalharmony

46

Something not very explicit in the current CRH write up is the need for a logic moderated debate process named “Rational Debating” wherein the logic form of debate is strictly moderated although truth value judgments are not. That Rational Debating process is what allows for rationale to supersede passion and politics. As critical as it is, I should have made it more defined in the write up.

47

I’m not yet finding any real examples for application as I read CRH. I have some snapshots of the principals, but now I want to know the visceral things like how does a bridge get built, how do you decide who oversees it.

Anyhow, the thread was not intended strictly to promote CRH, but CRH was the very first presentation I saw in the thread that seems to have structured potential to it. Many of the other answers I’ve been seeing are some kind of philosophical trickery such as “kill yourself” / “there was never a problem so don’t even try” / “Meditate and then you can die.” etc, I would like to see competing ideas that would offer a structured alternative to what we have today. Ideas for deep reform? . . . maybe? A few of the other ones, though anecdotal, were also a good short read.

I don’t know. I still like that I got genuine efforts after making the thread.

48

Don’t make it harder than it is. Every living thing makes decisions;

  1. Proposal #253; It is proposed that we build a bridge over Niagara falls for the following reason(s);
    -a purpose A
    -b purpose B
    **** Any counter proposals?
    debate
    debate
    debate
    Resolution carries

  2. Proposal #260; It is proposed that Bill Hecksly put together a project plan for the Niagara Bridge for the following reason;
    -a Bill is the only one of us that knows anything about bridges
    **** Any counter proposals?
    Resolution carries

  3. Proposal #271; It is proposed that the following plan be used to build the Niagara bridge;

  • Project definition
  • Financial schedule
  • Labor schedule
  • Material sources
  • Material lists

**** Any counter proposals?
debate
debate
debate
.
.
Resolution carries

The plan presumably laid out who would be doing what and when as per prior Constitutional guidelines and Amendments. Break out the coffee and donuts and get to work.

49

What a normal corporation does and what the CRH recommends are almost identical with one serious exception.

A corporation or a proprietorship uses a dictatorial type of assignment for each task. In the case of the corporation, the higher dictator is a group of shareholders who vote rather than an individual as in the proprietorship (“company”).

The CRH suggests to have rationality be the dictator, not a person or group of people. That is how rationality gets increased in society over political passion struggles. If you don’t authorize rationality, it cannot increase in use and in its place are efforts to deceive to the best advantage of individual members - passion politics.

50

=D> =D> =D>

51

Oh yes, Yorick. Bravo! What grand wisdom without hardly any effort.

Your mom died in a car accident just now? Really, define that as a problem.
Identify your assumptions in thinking that was a problem.
Disregard everything you were thinking as it being a problem because who cares.

Solved.

We must applaud what can fit on a bar napkin.

52

If

=

Then “Your mom” = “The world”. She wasn’t that good :laughing:

Isn’t that what you were asking for though, solving the world in a really simplified way?

I did get what you meant reeeally, I wasn’t mocking you (though this post so far has been pretty mocking but do forgive me). My three step offering was actually consistent with the amor fati outlook that takes my preference.

That aside, taking tragedies gravely and fearfully as I presume you intended us to, my solution is:

  1. Overthrow bouregoise Capitalist States on an international scale
  2. Install a proletariat dictatorship in the form of a Socialist State
  3. Watch the State wither away as Communism establishes itself
53

Ok, you’ve earned my =D> for sly cynicism.

54

Your system cannot take place unless the state is genuinely detached from any kind of outside statetal control (political bias and thus, conditioning). No goverment will allow a set (group) of people to settle anywhere in their territory if they do not abide by the rules of the state. Unless the group manages to somehow find a place which is not already governed (owned by a country) that state cannot ever start. It will also, be deprived from the obvious benefits of being part of the current system, healthcare ect.

Umm, I ask is consuming drug defined as happiness? What if a group decides it is rationale to raid other groups to get the resources that they need to get the drugs. Define rationale since i expect you will say it would not be a rationale decision.

Propaganda is needed and thus, conditioning. people already think capitalism is great, general term, so you would have to convince,condition people that this is a better method.

i can agree to that if it means, people with same ideals.

Emotions and as a result ways of thinking are acquired by conditioning. This is why, people of the same group tend to like the same things, People from england like football, people in the USA like baseball and it also determines the intensity with which they are liked. Where they are born increases the chances of what they will like. in the same way people of any group tend to have similar emotional and rationale levels. It is not 100% emotional or rationale but they do not have to be as such because the overall population determines the mood the social system. E.G. that einstein lived some part of his live in Germany it does not mean that the population got more intelligent.

55

Who said anything about not obeying the laws of the land??
Nothing prevents you from joining a group of people who merely do what they say, say what they do, and record WHY they are doing it. What country doesn’t allow that?

I thought that I answered that.
Rationale == logical process toward a chosen goal.

If one group were to invade another, people would do what they have always done, except do it with collective rationality. They defend themselves more rationally. They choose everything they do with more rationality, collectively determined rationality. They still do what they might normally do otherwise. And they still pay the consequences for their choices.

You are assuming 3 things;

  1. that you as a group have reason to care what others do or not.
  2. people only need propaganda if they need persuading beyond what they would otherwise choose.
  3. that the mere display of success of your group is insufficient to cause the idea to spread.

Ten people working as a rational group can always do far more than ten individuals.

56

But then it would not be a repubilc because it would be bind up by the established rules, no matter what happens your lives will still be dictated by the already established dogmas. In this case where is the real autonomy? What desicions are you left with other than i want my house to be like this and I will buy this stuff. I mean it is not really a state but a group within an already established state. There is nothing new to that.

What is the difference between that and the current U.S foreign policy? Anyones foreing policy really.

I do not seem to get what you are getting at, this seems to contradict itself. You care and you do not care?

People wont like to hear that their current lifestyle sucks and that they should try a new one unless they hate the current one. (most people like capitalism). Afterall propaganda is needed to spread the word around, and convince ofcourse.

Well… to work it has to start so you have to adress the first issue.

57

I am happy to see that someone actually made a document to propose solutions. I much prefer this kind of effort as opposed to people oxymoronically saying “fuck the world, everything’s fine” but just in more intellectual jello-pudding philosophy “educated” terms. So CRH is, yes, the kind of thing I love to see. Here’s my problem. It seems to imply “Everything is fine as long as it’s rational. If the rational steak doesn’t drive into the ground more thorough just drive it harder with a bigger mallet”

There are too many vague interpretations for any one situation as to what the rational solution is. If the rational course is the supposed result of a debate, just look to the forum for your example of that success. We begin debates, and rarely if ever conclude anything of importance. I do believe snippets of it are still very useful. As a whole, I don’t know if the beast has hope.

As far as the critique goes that the document has no hope if you can’t find a real world nation to support it, I don’t think that holds water. It’s theory, not applied politics. It isn’t so unconventional to conceptualize a city that starts from scratch in a fairly politically neutral territory. (eg, It’s on an ocean base like sealand. Be creative).

That’s a sweeping assumption. Most people endure capitalism. A lot of people believe that real democratic power is a lost art. Perhaps what you’re trying to point out is that the far right will obviously not agree with the far left.

58

You seem to be missing the key elements concerning what makes it work. I thought we were going to get into that on your site.

Deciding what is or isn’t rational involves attempts at being logical after goals are chosen. Rational Debating is nothing like what you see on these forums (that should be pretty obvious). For rational debating, there must be a logic moderator who simply keeps the debate on a logic based track. If a relevant question is posed, it must be addressed. If assertions are made that have not been either agreed to in premise or substantiated by argument, they must be removed or supported. The objective is resolution, not competition.

Rational Debating
Perfect Logical Presentation can be a guide, but the point is that one of the members is assigned the task of ensuring basic logical form in the debating so as to stay away from political jousting as you see throughout the world as well as on these forums. It is a little like a court room wherein the judge ensures that the debate stays not merely civil, but exactly to the point… and to each point with nothing being left out and time isn’t wasted repeating issues or merely playing mind games.

Learning
But beyond the debating process is the issue that everyone gets to see the debating and participate. It is not a competition, but an effort to resolve the most rational decision by any means. Due to this, every member knows exactly why any decision or rule is being made. Because it is always required to be recorded, for generations, everyone gets to see why things were done as they were without the worry of who is trying to politically trick them into something. This causes learning, not only of the current generation, but all generations to come.

In addition, in merely learning why things are being done and why they used to be done differently, the actual use of rational thought becomes instilled due to it being the required process for change, rather than the old passion politics method. Every member is exposed to and practiced in the attempt to be more rational. It is not necessary that anyone be perfectly good at it at any time. They improve and increase in intelligence merely by the practice and exposure. It is a process that inherently restores sanity.

Adaptability
Every generation would be expected to make mistakes in their reasoning. But because it is always documented precisely, anyone can come along and find corrections that might make for important changes, “Do we really have to do things the way we have been?”

But something that is very important is the speed with which a group can adapt to a new situation or newly discovered reasoning. The laws and decisions are being made strictly by the debating process, thus any resolution is immediately law regardless of how long some other rule had been in place. Tradition has no more say than by what the people desire to stick to by choice. Passion voting could take a very long time and is riddled with opportunities for corruption.

Freedom of Choices
Although Rational Debating is the underlying scheme, it must be realized that nothing can be said to be rational until a goal is chosen. The rationale comes into merely how to accomplish the goal. The goal itself is not an issue of rationality unless it interferes with some other goal already in effect. Thus anyone can propose anything as a goal quite freely and if there is no counter proposal, it immediately passes.

59

Read the above post.

Do you get to participate in making those policies? Or even get to really see exactly what they really are? - That is the biggest difference. But even more, anyone who proposes anything more logically sound, immediately wins the day. It is not a question of buying votes.

Each group is making their decisions based on their groups needs. What other people choose to do or not, is the business of other people. The world’s history is filled with groups who quietly hide their own reasoning so as to take advantage of others. They don’t want others to be rational. Whether any group cares about other people is their choice to make. Else you are talking about a dictatorship, not a democracy.

No one is forced into anything. The groups choose what they decide themselves. Other groups or individuals choose for themselves. Where is the need for propaganda?

That is exactly true. Getting the first item merely so it can be seen and any refinements worked in, requires special people dedicated to getting that done. The first group is not only the hardest to assemble, but requires people who can see it from the abstract design stand point without having to see it physically in action. On top of that, they have to be people who have any reason to care.

60

I should add;

Passion Voting
The normal (for today) voting processes are not strictly forbidden on any level of decision making other than the constitutional level. If it is rationally decided that a vote should be taken, then do the rational thing and take a vote. This would rationally apply to many things such as merely who what chicken rather than steak for dinner. A group could even rationally decide that everything should be by passion vote only without any rational debating. But above that level must always be the ability to propose rationale against the idea of always voting on everything.

Thus you get the best of both worlds. If reversed, allowing passion voting to dictate on the highest level, you could only choose to become rationale based by passion political procedures and manipulations which will always be under psychological control from a few members or from outside forces. As long as rationality is the highest level of decision making available, there will always be hope of learning and growing stronger. The reverse is not true.