Solve the world in 3 steps.

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Re: Solve the world in 3 steps.

Postby Gaiaguerrilla » Thu May 12, 2011 2:37 am

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.
Image
User avatar
Gaiaguerrilla
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 4:25 pm

Re: Solve the world in 3 steps.

Postby Silhouette » Thu May 12, 2011 3:43 am

If
Gaiaguerrilla wrote: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.

=
Silhouette wrote:1. Define the world as being a problem
2. Identify your assumptions in doing so
3. Disregard these assumptions

Then "Your mom" = "The world". She wasn't that good :lol:

Gaiaguerrilla wrote:We must applaud what can fit on a bar napkin.

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

Gaiaguerrilla wrote: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.

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
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Solve the world in 3 steps.

Postby Gaiaguerrilla » Thu May 12, 2011 11:45 am

Ok, you've earned my =D> for sly cynicism.
Image
User avatar
Gaiaguerrilla
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 4:25 pm

Re: Solve the world in 3 steps.

Postby victorel21 » Mon May 16, 2011 2:58 am

James S Saint wrote: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.


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.

James S Saint wrote: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.


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.

James S Saint wrote:victorel21 wrote:
In this case you have two optons:
1. Leave people be.
2. Condition people.
Not really.
All that is needed is for one group to actually do the process and others to see it working. No "conditioning".


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.

James S Saint wrote:The CRH provide for a diversity of groups wherein each group is of like-minded people.


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

James S Saint wrote:You are presenting a dichotomy of people either being 100% emotionally chaotic or 100% stoically rational.


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.
"As a philosopher I am skeptical of everything including my own thoughts" -- me.
victorel21
Thinker
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:24 pm

Re: Solve the world in 3 steps.

Postby James S Saint » Mon May 16, 2011 3:15 am

victorel21 wrote: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.

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?

victorel21 wrote: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.

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.

victorel21 wrote: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.

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.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Solve the world in 3 steps.

Postby victorel21 » Tue May 17, 2011 2:13 am

James S Saint wrote: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?


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.

James S Saint wrote: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.


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

James S Saint wrote:You are assuming 3 things;
1) that you as a group have reason to care what others do or not.


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

James S Saint wrote:people only need propaganda if they need persuading beyond what they would otherwise choose.


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.

James S Saint wrote: that the mere display of success of your group is insufficient to cause the idea to spread.


Well.. to work it has to start so you have to adress the first issue.
"As a philosopher I am skeptical of everything including my own thoughts" -- me.
victorel21
Thinker
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:24 pm

Re: Solve the world in 3 steps.

Postby Gaiaguerrilla » Tue May 17, 2011 6:36 am

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).

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).
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.
Image
User avatar
Gaiaguerrilla
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 4:25 pm

Re: Solve the world in 3 steps.

Postby James S Saint » Tue May 17, 2011 1:46 pm

Gaiaguerrilla wrote:"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.

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.
Last edited by James S Saint on Tue May 17, 2011 2:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Solve the world in 3 steps.

Postby James S Saint » Tue May 17, 2011 2:01 pm

victorel21 wrote: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.

Read the above post.

victorel21 wrote:What is the difference between that and the current U.S foreign policy? Anyones foreing policy really.

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.

victorel21 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:You are assuming 3 things;
1) that you as a group have reason to care what others do or not.


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

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.

victorel21 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:people only need propaganda if they need persuading beyond what they would otherwise choose.

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.

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?

victorel21 wrote:
James S Saint wrote: that the mere display of success of your group is insufficient to cause the idea to spread.
Well.. to work it has to start so you have to adress the first issue.

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.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Solve the world in 3 steps.

Postby James S Saint » Tue May 17, 2011 2:25 pm

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.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Solve the world in 3 steps.

Postby Gaiaguerrilla » Tue May 17, 2011 2:44 pm

You seem to be missing the key elements concerning what makes it work.


If the rest of your post was outlining what the "key elements" are, then I'm still missing it. Perhaps pretty well the entire world is missing it and only you are the anointed observer who clearly understands this.

It only reinforces my assertions that it drives the cause of logic and reason without really identifying mechanisms as to what implements those things. What is perfect logical representation? Have you somehow distilled perfection out of all the cosmic chaos? Shall you provide the world with a text by which mankind for the first time and till the end of time attains its salvation? Your representation of perfect logical presentation is a list of examples for the conditional symbol.

I thought we were going to get into that on your site.


The site is a short and easy canvas. If the art is as great as you believe it is, there is a canvas, paint. I'm not the driving force there you are. I am still interested, but gradually losing that interest dependent on how much argument reiterates the same claims and yet doesn't offer new and specific ideas. It does nothing to reiterate that you feel other people are simply too dimwitted to comprehend this grand ultimate scheme. Because if they are too dimwitted, you are wasting your time.

Rational Debating is nothing like what you see on these forums (that should be pretty obvious).


I'm glad you cleared that up, because the only logical solution therefore is to delete the forum, since rational debate is nothing like it, therefore it is irrational, irrational things are to be removed, therefore the forum is to be removed. Can we get a moderator to verify that I made a logical deduction from the above sentence?

Hypothesis: There are interesting morsels in this CRH business, but it's not proving to solve problems.

Basis: Lots of argument, no social change. What does it need? Funding? Make an executive summary like you would give to the bank. Afterall, that's the logical way to base projected results on confirmed necessity.

Conclusion: dude, just give it a go. You don't need devout followers, you just need interest. If you didn't have interest you wouldn't be getting replies. Work at it, refine it, rerepresent it. Don't drive a steak. And quit telling people they "clearly don't understand" because it's not solving the problem of presenting what you believe is such an ultimate solution.
Image
User avatar
Gaiaguerrilla
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 4:25 pm

Re: Solve the world in 3 steps.

Postby James S Saint » Tue May 17, 2011 3:02 pm

Gaiaguerrilla wrote:What is perfect logical representation? Have you somehow distilled perfection out of all the cosmic chaos?

Did you see the site?
It is just about how to construct a logical argument.
Nothing magical or new about it.

Gaiaguerrilla wrote:The site is a short and easy canvas. If the art is as great as you believe it is, there is a canvas, paint. I'm not the driving force there you are. I am still interested, but gradually losing that interest dependent on how much argument reiterates the same claims and yet doesn't offer new and specific ideas. It does nothing to reiterate that you feel other people are simply too dimwitted to comprehend this grand ultimate scheme. Because if they are too dimwitted, you are wasting your time.

Then don't worry about it.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Solve the world in 3 steps.

Postby victorel21 » Wed May 18, 2011 8:07 pm

James S Saint wrote: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.


What if the rationale desicion is to not let everyone know about certain things, as it is now?

James S Saint wrote: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.


So your system will be somewhat similar to natural selection, start a new group, if/when it fails start a new one after that?
Isnt it a bit to similar to what we have already?

prop·a·gan·da   /ˌprɒpəˈgændə/ Show Spelled
[prop-uh-gan-duh] Show IPA

–noun
1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement

The mere spreading of "the word" that hey this is new and it working is defined as propaganda.

When something new is taken into consideration it is immeadiately attacked, Crh, by me and others for example, some level of explanation (convincing) is needed and thus, propaganda since that is what it is defined as.
"As a philosopher I am skeptical of everything including my own thoughts" -- me.
victorel21
Thinker
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:24 pm

Re: Solve the world in 3 steps.

Postby victorel21 » Wed May 18, 2011 8:17 pm

Gaiaguerrilla wrote: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).

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.


I think you did not understand the word like here, poeple will always try and maintain their current lifestyle (generally speaking), the problem with Crh is that the advantages are better seen in the longer term and so it will be really hard to get people off their rutine. By like I mean they prefer. (generally speaking.)
"As a philosopher I am skeptical of everything including my own thoughts" -- me.
victorel21
Thinker
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:24 pm

Re: Solve the world in 3 steps.

Postby James S Saint » Wed May 18, 2011 8:45 pm

victorel21 wrote:
James S Saint wrote: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.


What if the rationale decision is to not let everyone know about certain things, as it is now?

Then you would be proposing that being rational requires that you never tell anyone anything yourself. And that means that the current government, requiring you to not hide from them, would be requiring you to be irrational... by law.

But if for whatever reason, your group decides in debate that it cannot divulge something going on, all it has to do is propose the exact method by which that item is to be concealed and WHY. If it doesn't even do that, the group cannot maintain rationality, nor any of its members. Later that same item might be proposed to be opened again, but only by rational debate.

victorel21 wrote:
James S Saint wrote: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.

So your system will be somewhat similar to natural selection, start a new group, if/when it fails start a new one after that?
Isnt it a bit to similar to what we have already?

What do you call "failing"? The group is merely trying to discover what is most rational for themselves. When is that a bad idea?

And the only similarity is in small businesses, not any current governments.

victorel21 wrote:The mere spreading of "the word" that hey this is new and it working is defined as propaganda.

Only if it is being done so as to exercise undo influence. Proselytizing and propaganda is not the same as merely sharing information.

victorel21 wrote:When something new is taken into consideration it is immeadiately attacked, CRH, by me and others for example, some level of explanation (convincing) is needed and thus, propaganda since that is what it is defined as.

As explained before, it takes unusually sharp people to form the initial group because they have no example to follow. The US Constitution had the same problem. Even the idea of voting had that same problem, "Hey instead of one King, let's form a group of king's that vote and the majority will always force the others to go along." - Think how many problems and corruptions that system has instilled, yet it is still used today throughout the world, but it was once brand new.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Solve the world in 3 steps.

Postby victorel21 » Sat May 21, 2011 7:22 pm

James S Saint wrote:Then you would be proposing that being rational requires that you never tell anyone anything yourself. And that means that the current government, requiring you to not hide from them, would be requiring you to be irrational... by law.

But if for whatever reason, your group decides in debate that it cannot divulge something going on, all it has to do is propose the exact method by which that item is to be concealed and WHY. If it doesn't even do that, the group cannot maintain rationality, nor any of its members. Later that same item might be proposed to be opened again, but only by rational debate.


Does not your state prohibit an irrational decision? As such this decision could never be arrived at.

James S Saint wrote:What do you call "failing"? The group is merely trying to discover what is most rational for themselves. When is that a bad idea?


a : omission of occurrence or performance; specifically : a failing to perform a duty or expected action <failure to pay the rent on time> b (1) : a state of inability to perform a normal function <kidney failure> — compare heart failure (2) : an abrupt cessation of normal functioning <a power failure> c : a fracturing or giving way under stress <structural failure>
2a : lack of success b : a failing in business : bankruptcy
3a : a falling short : deficiency <a crop failure> b : deterioration, decay
4: one that has failed

Failure is defined as something which is not succesful or "meets desires goals" by definition if the decisions that the states arrive at do not meet their desired goals they are failures. It is not a bad idea, but my point is unsucceful groups are going to be absorbed by more successful group in the end their will be a homogeniety as the groups are going to tend to default8 adopt) ideas that work. However, this is the same, people are adopting american culture because it has become the model (idea) that work. This does not mean that the idea itself wont work. Therefore even though at first their will be a vast amount of states their will be pressure in the long run for the homogeneity of all the states (uniformity of ideas) your system as such does not prevent the already established ideas to fail.

James S Saint wrote:And the only similarity is in small businesses, not any current governments.


Yes but goverments are ideas of idealized social structures, as such i defined them a a ratinale thought which was then adopted by many other people.

James S Saint wrote:Only if it is being done so as to exercise undo influence. Proselytizing and propaganda is not the same as merely sharing information.


"Objectivity is an impossible achievement" No one ever just shares information. the order, strength choice of words everything that is said can influence in a way that either tries to convince or deter a person from believing something.

P.S. if i do not reply to a statement is because i agree with it.
"As a philosopher I am skeptical of everything including my own thoughts" -- me.
victorel21
Thinker
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:24 pm

Re: Solve the world in 3 steps.

Postby James S Saint » Sun May 22, 2011 12:09 am

victorel21 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Then you would be proposing that being rational requires that you never tell anyone anything yourself. And that means that the current government, requiring you to not hide from them, would be requiring you to be irrational... by law.

But if for whatever reason, your group decides in debate that it cannot divulge something going on, all it has to do is propose the exact method by which that item is to be concealed and WHY. If it doesn't even do that, the group cannot maintain rationality, nor any of its members. Later that same item might be proposed to be opened again, but only by rational debate.


Does not your state prohibit an irrational decision? As such this decision could never be arrived at.

What decision could not be "arrived at"?

victorel21 wrote:Failure is defined as something which is not succesful or "meets desires goals" by definition if the decisions that the states arrive at do not meet their desired goals they are failures. It is not a bad idea, but my point is unsucceful groups are going to be absorbed by more successful group in the end their will be a homogeniety as the groups are going to tend to default8 adopt) ideas that work. However, this is the same, people are adopting american culture because it has become the model (idea) that work. This does not mean that the idea itself wont work. Therefore even though at first their will be a vast amount of states their will be pressure in the long run for the homogeneity of all the states (uniformity of ideas) your system as such does not prevent the already established ideas to fail.

The whole point is to allow for everyone to follow what they can see is the better idea. Now if at some point everyone thinks one idea is the better idea, are you suggesting that they don't do it because everyone doing the best thing is a bad thing? And if by some rationale it really is, then obviously they aren't all going to be doing it because such was a bad idea.

The entire scheme is the ultimate in democracy, yet is extremely fast at adapting. In the long run, it has a faster response time than the current US military.

victorel21 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:And the only similarity is in small businesses, not any current governments.


Yes but goverments are ideas of idealized social structures, as such i defined them a a ratinale thought which was then adopted by many other people.

"Many others", but the entire rest of the population then becomes merely their slaves in every case. In the CRH, everyone gets to see exactly why they are doing everything and has a say about it. It is the closet thing to extreme anarchy and extreme order at the same time that you can get, all the while encouraging people toward rational thinking rather than irrational self-defeat.

victorel21 wrote:"Objectivity is an impossible achievement" No one ever just shares information. the order, strength choice of words everything that is said can influence in a way that either tries to convince or deter a person from believing something.

That is true in political systems like the ones people have to suffer under now. But it isn't true in rational systems where reasoning has higher authority, much like in Science.

The entire CRH is similar to Science except even better. In Science open experimental debate is touted and used as reason to accept or deny conclusions. One experiment, if approved to be conducted, will have perhaps one or two other groups do the same experiment to show that independent studies were done. With the CRH, in effect, 100,000 or more replicate the rationale to see if they agree to it. No one is accepting some idea merely because someone else thought it was great for everyone.

Currently any federal law immediately covers over a 3000 mile continent. But the likelihood that the entire range of such laws are really appropriate throughout is minimal. The CRH can accomplish the same thing without causing even one case where the law must be applied yet wasn't actually rational. For example, a group of handicappers do not have to lobby Congress to get attention to the fact that the new law disregarded their situation. With CRH, the "new law" never touches them in the first place.

victorel21 wrote:P.S. if i do not reply to a statement is because i agree with it.

Better to pay the good than to ignore it, else you are only paying the bad and starving the good.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Solve the world in 3 steps.

Postby victorel21 » Sun May 22, 2011 8:16 pm

James S Saint wrote:What decision could not be "arrived at"?



you said this:

James S Saint wrote:Then you would be proposing that being rational requires that you never tell anyone anything yourself.


then you said

James S Saint wrote:And that means that the current government, requiring you to not hide from them, would be requiring you to be irrational... by law.


This implies that the first statement would be an irrational decision.

James S Saint wrote:are you suggesting that they don't do it because everyone doing the best thing is a bad thing?


Nope, just detailing a thought of what to expect, I assumed that you where expecting the republics to be numerous and plenty I am simply pointing out that groups in the long run will look very similar.

James S Saint wrote: In the CRH, everyone gets to see exactly why they are doing everything and has a say about it.


Better said, has the potential to have a say about it, very few people, realisticly, are going to be involved in the debate process. It will still be the few, dictating the many. Only that this will now be done under the curtain of "rationality."

James S Saint wrote:It is the closet thing to extreme anarchy and extreme order at the same time that you can get


Let us assume that their is a communist republic that wishes to turn to a democracy, it is unrealistic that this would be done immeadiately as it will most likely make the state decend into chaos.

James S Saint wrote:That is true in political systems like the ones people have to suffer under now.


Which evolved due to the characteristics of human nature.
James S Saint wrote:The entire CRH is similar to Science except even better. In Science open experimental debate is touted and used as reason to accept or deny conclusions. One experiment, if approved to be conducted, will have perhaps one or two other groups do the same experiment to show that independent studies were done. With the CRH, in effect, 100,000 or more replicate the rationale to see if they agree to it. No one is accepting some idea merely because someone else thought it was great for everyone.

Currently any federal law immediately covers over a 3000 mile continent. But the likelihood that the entire range of such laws are really appropriate throughout is minimal. The CRH can accomplish the same thing without causing even one case where the law must be applied yet wasn't actually rational. For example, a group of handicappers do not have to lobby Congress to get attention to the fact that the new law disregarded their situation. With CRH, the "new law" never touches them in the first place.


Essencially it seems that CRH, deals with organization of smalll group whereby this ensures that any laws implemented are indeed relevant to that group. However, is there a cap to how small a group should be? If people are let to decide groups are likely to be.. well very big, due to the current economic system and the transport and demographics.
"As a philosopher I am skeptical of everything including my own thoughts" -- me.
victorel21
Thinker
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:24 pm

Re: Solve the world in 3 steps.

Postby James S Saint » Sun May 22, 2011 8:39 pm

victorel21 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:And that means that the current government, requiring you to not hide from them, would be requiring you to be irrational... by law.


This implies that the first statement would be an irrational decision.

Exactly my point.

James S Saint wrote:are you suggesting that they don't do it because everyone doing the best thing is a bad thing?

Nope, just detailing a thought of what to expect, I assumed that you where expecting the republics to be numerous and plenty I am simply pointing out that groups in the long run will look very similar.[/quote]
Well you proposed that they might. I pointed out, "so what?". But in fact, they will NOT be alike at all other than their fundamental Constitution. People must behave so as to compensate for their individual situation. And that is never the same for everyone.

victorel21 wrote:
James S Saint wrote: In the CRH, everyone gets to see exactly why they are doing everything and has a say about it.

Better said, has the potential to have a say about it, very few people, realisticly, are going to be involved in the debate process.

On the contrary. It is "rational" that they be taught how to participate and the potnetial they have, similar to teaching students "Civics".
victorel21 wrote:It will still be the few, dictating the many. Only that this will now be done under the curtain of "rationality."

But look at the numbers in even the worst case of hardly any within each group participating. If there were a million such groups (a modest estimate), at least 4 million would be participating in making the decisions. How many actually make the decisions for 20 million people as it is today? I would estimate really only 4-20.

So as it is; 1 out of 1 million
Under CRH; 1 out of 5

victorel21 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:That is true in political systems like the ones people have to suffer under now.

Which evolved due to the characteristics of human nature.

As did Kingdoms. Yet how many rule the world today?
victorel21 wrote:Essencially it seems that CRH, deals with organization of smalll group whereby this ensures that any laws implemented are indeed relevant to that group. However, is there a cap to how small a group should be? If people are let to decide groups are likely to be.. well very big, due to the current economic system and the transport and demographics.

Any less than 4 is critically dangerous to the integrity of the design. Checks and balances require either distinction or serious honesty.

But the CRH mandates that the population MAY NOT exceed the physical ability to truly represent the needs and situation of every member. Thus, depending on technology and prowess, I would expect groups to range from 20 to 70. But Reality is the guide.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Solve the world in 3 steps.

Postby James S Saint » Sun May 22, 2011 8:48 pm

Actually to more precisely answer the OP;

In steps;
1) Realize what Reality is
2) Find a means to help track the needs it imposes upon you
3) Let Reality guide your system.

What I have proposed is;

1) The realization of what Reality actually is; Rational Metaphysics and Existence Meaningfully Defined (I should add one for "The Meaning and Methods of Life").
2) CRH is a means to help track Reality and the needs it imposes upon Life, by people rationally working together.
3) Assuming (2) is established, Let Reality dictate what should be done each day.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Solve the world in 3 steps.

Postby victorel21 » Mon May 23, 2011 4:18 pm

James S Saint wrote:victorel21 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
And that means that the current government, requiring you to not hide from them, would be requiring you to be irrational... by law.

This implies that the first statement would be an irrational decision.
Exactly my point.


Then under CRH it would not be rationale and thus prohibited to conclude that:

victorel21 wrote:being rational requires that you never tell anyone anything yourself.


?

James S Saint wrote:But in fact, they will NOT be alike at all other than their fundamental Constitution. People must behave so as to compensate for their individual situation. And that is never the same for everyone.


I am not saying that they will the same just that they will become very similar. They might have some tweaks here and there but in the long run the big proposals will be very alike.

James S Saint wrote:On the contrary. It is "rational" that they be taught how to participate and the potnetial they have, similar to teaching students "Civics".


Even with the knowledge very few people will actually get involved in the process.

James S Saint wrote:As did Kingdoms. Yet how many rule the world today?


Fair enough. However, where does morality fit in a rationale country? When you say logicwhat exactly do you mean? For example, giving health care to people who have chronic diseases is very expensive, such as necrophilia, would not it be logical to get them out pof the health care system?

James S Saint wrote:I would expect groups to range from 20 to 70.


You mean a population the size of the U.S.A divided into 70 groups or a group of 70 people?
"As a philosopher I am skeptical of everything including my own thoughts" -- me.
victorel21
Thinker
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:24 pm

Re: Solve the world in 3 steps.

Postby James S Saint » Mon May 23, 2011 4:58 pm

victorel21 wrote:Then under CRH it would not be rationale and thus prohibited to conclude that:
victorel21 wrote:being rational requires that you never tell anyone anything yourself.

Your proposal was that telling anyone what you are doing would be irrational. The opposite is actual true with a few exceptions (it depends on who you are telling and what you are telling).

victorel21 wrote:I am not saying that they will the same just that they will become very similar. They might have some tweaks here and there but in the long run the big proposals will be very alike.

So you believe that a homosexual city dweller would become "very similar" to a heterosexual farmer?

victorel21 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:On the contrary. It is "rational" that they be taught how to participate and the potnetial they have, similar to teaching students "Civics".
Even with the knowledge very few people will actually get involved in the process.

How involved they get is up to them to rationally decide. You are proposing that it would be irrational for them to get involved in the decisions that affect their lives. How would that be rational?

victorel21 wrote:However, where does morality fit in a rationale country? When you say logic, what exactly do you mean? For example, giving health care to people who have chronic diseases is very expensive, such as necrophilia, would not it be logical to get them out pof the health care system?

That is for them to debate. If any member disagrees substantially but cannot come up with any rationale for his claim, then he should find a different group more in line with his thinking (or lack of), else he is causing a disharmony to develop within himself as well as the group. He always has the freedom to change groups.

victorel21 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:I would expect groups to range from 20 to 70.
You mean a population the size of the U.S.A divided into 70 groups or a group of 70 people?

I mean that a population of 300,000,000 would probably have about 10,000,000 groups. It is an exact analogy to the body having billions of cells. Each group is a cell of the over-all body. Within that body, organs (organization of groups) will rationally develop as Reality dictates.

The problem that the world is having is that a single person cannot simulate a cell in a body as the ancient wisdoms have always professed. They need to be a part of a small group. The similarities in the way those groups function (their Constitution) is what allows them to work in harmony even though each is taking care of its own concerns. The body thrives because each element (cell) is attending to its needs, which includes learning.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Solve the world in 3 steps.

Postby victorel21 » Tue May 24, 2011 3:10 pm

James S Saint wrote:So you believe that a homosexual city dweller would become "very similar" to a heterosexual farmer?


As time passes they will become more alike. Ofcourse geographic areas are a big determinant but homogeniety will be seeked.

James S Saint wrote:How involved they get is up to them to rationally decide. You are proposing that it would be irrational for them to get involved in the decisions that affect their lives. How would that be rational?


In the current democratic system it is rational to vote and yet the percentage of people voting decreases every election, few exception. Even if it where rationale why would everyone or alot for that instance take part in a far more complicated and ardous debating process. Otherwise you would be saying that for your system people hae to change mentalities which is somewhat naive. ( a great deal of conditioning is needed.)

James S Saint wrote:victorel21 wrote:
However, where does morality fit in a rationale country? When you say logic, what exactly do you mean? For example, giving health care to people who have chronic diseases is very expensive, such as necrophilia, would not it be logical to get them out pof the health care system?
That is for them to debate. If any member disagrees substantially but cannot come up with any rationale for his claim, then he should find a different group more in line with his thinking (or lack of), else he is causing a disharmony to develop within himself as well as the group. He always has the freedom to change groups.


Your system is based on rationality, logical process towards a chosen goal. Now why should one logically take care of a person who is has a genetic condition that makes him constantly ill, is not him a drain of resources? Moreover his condition is likely to make him very unproductive. Logically there is no argument for taking care of these people other than, it is not humain, but where do emotions fit in rationality? Is not this debating process geared towards erradicating passion politics? What thing other than passion keeps us from helping the people that cannot help themselves?

Your system either:

*Allows for any desicion to take place.
*Only allows people to arrive at logical desicions. (not emotional, at least not concerning individual emotions.)

James S Saint wrote: mean that a population of 300,000,000 would probably have about 10,000,000 groups. It is an exact analogy to the body having billions of cells. Each group is a cell of the over-all body. Within that body, organs (organization of groups) will rationally develop as Reality dictates.


That makes 30 people per group, do you imagine a city such as New York assemble as to have little separate groups of 30 people, each with their own rules. How can that be realistic when the average is of more that 4000 people living in each kilometre square? Groups simply out of necessity are more realisticaly going to be composed of about 3000 to 4000 people. And that is a low estimate. Very low actually.
"As a philosopher I am skeptical of everything including my own thoughts" -- me.
victorel21
Thinker
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:24 pm

Re: Solve the world in 3 steps.

Postby James S Saint » Tue May 24, 2011 5:44 pm

victorel21 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:So you believe that a homosexual city dweller would become "very similar" to a heterosexual farmer?
As time passes they will become more alike. Ofcourse geographic areas are a big determinant but homogeniety will be seeked.
They will become more alike in some regards. They will lose the desire to attack each other for example. Is that a problem?

victorel21 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:How involved they get is up to them to rationally decide. You are proposing that it would be irrational for them to get involved in the decisions that affect their lives. How would that be rational?

In the current democratic system it is rational to vote and yet the percentage of people voting decreases every election

And in current systems they are not governed by rational decision making. You have merely proven my point.

victorel21 wrote:Otherwise you would be saying that for your system people hae to change mentalities which is somewhat naive. ( a great deal of conditioning is needed.)

Not as much as you seem to think, but are you suggesting that we make things better without altering what or how anyone thinks?

victorel21 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:That is for them to debate. If any member disagrees substantially but cannot come up with any rationale for his claim, then he should find a different group more in line with his thinking (or lack of), else he is causing a disharmony to develop within himself as well as the group. He always has the freedom to change groups.

Your system is based on rationality, logical process towards a chosen goal. Now why should one logically take care of a person who is has a genetic condition that makes him constantly ill, is not him a drain of resources? Moreover his condition is likely to make him very unproductive. Logically there is no argument for taking care of these people other than, it is not humain, but where do emotions fit in rationality? Is not this debating process geared towards erradicating passion politics? What thing other than passion keeps us from helping the people that cannot help themselves?

Are you suggesting that anyone who helps anyone else is being irrational? Very Nietzschian of you. As it turns out, passion in regards to compassion is very rational. The primary factor is that without compassion going untethered, cruelty for all increases. Utilitarianism is not a pleasant road to trek.

victorel21 wrote:*Allows for any desicion to take place.
*Only allows people to arrive at logical desicions. (not emotional, at least not concerning individual emotions.)

That is merely your naivity concerning logic and rationality as it relates to emotions. All emotions are formed from a logical bases. Rationality merely puts them in an order, a "rationed" release of desire. The direction of the desire, the goal, is another story and is not constrained by CRH other than the restriction to debate it openly.

victorel21 wrote:That makes 30 people per group, do you imagine a city such as New York assemble as to have little separate groups of 30 people, each with their own rules. How can that be realistic when the average is of more that 4000 people living in each kilometre square? Groups simply out of necessity are more realisticaly going to be composed of about 3000 to 4000 people. And that is a low estimate. Very low actually.

I don't know what you are imagining as a "group". How many families are in New York? A family is already almost the exact same thing, as are small businesses. The family was nature's way of doing the CRH. I am merely bring it up to date.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Solve the world in 3 steps.

Postby victorel21 » Tue May 24, 2011 7:04 pm

James S Saint wrote:They will become more alike in some regards. They will lose the desire to attack each other for example. Is that a problem?


Not really but as i previously pointed out:

victorel21 wrote: unsucceful groups are going to be absorbed by more successful group in the end their will be a homogeniety as the groups are going to tend to default8 adopt) ideas that work.


Why remain two different groups if they are increasingly the same in constitution? In the end these groups will tend to join and gather together therefore reducing greatly the number of republics, wherether it is bad or good depends on the interpreation of the individual.

James S Saint wrote:And in current systems they are not governed by rational decision making. You have merely proven my point.


Even if yours was you would have to make rationality the new religion which is done with alot of conditioning. Also the debating process is far more complicated than mere voting and a great deal of verification should be needed for any new proposal, are you saying that realistically at least 30 % of the population is going to take part in such a role? Nope, degrees will be formed and specialized people will be taught and they wil deal with this debates the general population will remain ignorant of these process. ( It is far more efficient, familiarazation principle, people will seek efficiency, given the current duties of people). Also even if you teach people at school about the system it is no guarantee that they will take an active role in it. (As seens now) How do you propose to make people active in this debate process?

James S Saint wrote:Not as much as you seem to think, but are you suggesting that we make things better without altering what or how anyone thinks?


No but if your system is based on rationality, it means that people must first, for the sake of the system be rationale thinkers since this is not the case right now. People will resist change, how do you think people will change to a new system without a failure of the prior one?

James S Saint wrote:Are you suggesting that anyone who helps anyone else is being irrational?


Rationality: logical process towards a chosen goal.

Goal, increase efficiency (save money) on health care systems to be able to spend more on other desired things.

Aimed at: increasing the well being of the general population.

Premise;
1. people with chronic diseases (on average) are far more expensive to take care of than the general population.

2. People with chronic diseases are far more unproductive ( on average) than the general population.

3. Population is increasing exponentially

4. resources are diminishing as they have to be wider spread.

Now is the goal not, increase the well being of the general population? Should not thus, individual concerns sacrifice themselves for the greater good? Where does individuality fit this logical process? Is this desicion not rational? ok, according to you it is rationale to feel compassion but if you do not detail exactly what rationale means is not your system doomed to be misintrepeted? It would not then yield the response that you are expecting. (you might know exactly what rationale means but others do not.)

It your system so I wont argue on you that compassion is rationale but you must detail EXACTLY what you mean otherwise the above problem arises. Rememeber if your constitution is established your draft will be likely seen as religion, if carried out as you expect/want it to.

James S Saint wrote:That is merely your naivity concerning logic and rationality as it relates to emotions. All emotions are formed from a logical bases. Rationality merely puts them in an order, a "rationed" release of desire.


Yeah I did not express well there. Rationality has to have a goal, every goal is geared towards the "greater good," overall concern of the group, if desicions are made to please individual concerns how is that any different to the "socialist" states that are present now. (socialist by your definition.) The few ruling the many.

James S Saint wrote:How many families are in New York? A family is already almost the exact same thing, as are small businesses. The family was nature's way of doing the CRH. I am merely bring it up to date.


Umm.. perhaps you might want to explain throughly what a group, is because a familiy is not the same as, a self ruling, autonomous state which has it own institutions and so on.

As a starting point-

* What are the exact functions of the groups?
"As a philosopher I am skeptical of everything including my own thoughts" -- me.
victorel21
Thinker
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:24 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users