Just Start Your Own Bank [1024x949 - 128KB]

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (27).

[–] • 0 pt

Thanks, its prudent to have a dialogue about these things if there is to be progress and not (((progress)))

So lets go back 100 000 years

Into a ficticious period for all we know. Do you have proof 100,000 years ago is even a thing?

Regardless, there were obviously past times with hardship and struggle - that will never change. Just that today our 'benefits' come at cost in other areas. There were past times probably with other benefits we cannot percieve today; because they've been robbed from our ancestors or more accurately - that our ancestors gave away or failed to defend; tricked themselves probably into the lure of money & greed.

Anyway your economics make sense. The problem is: they are economics. Which is primarily based on the mass-religion of money. The belief that we must consent to a third party 'system' for the benefit of the many. I don't think it works at scale because you can never trust 'the many' because some of those many are easily exploited by a few and the resulting domino effect will soon have your sons & daughters changing genders.

I am not proposing rejection of trade. I am proposing rejection of third party idolotry units. Any third party unit, even if only used by 2 neighbouring farmers to facilitate exchange of pigs for chickens, is an idol which requires belief to work. Even that system sure probably harmless in this context; a bit of accounting techniques to help accommodate a seasonal cycle as you suggested is not necessarily a problem when used in a small network of those you trust. It doesn't change the fact that there is belief involved however; and that the farmer who is at the end of the day holding the bag of 'units' and not chickens nor pigs is the one who has all the risk. A better system would be to ensure at all times in the exchange cycle that all parties receive something they need; you do not need imaginary idol units as you cannot eat them, so you don't need to use them even temporary there are ways for example using a 3rd farmer or a secondary product to engineer this so that even in off seasons everybody can exchange 1:1 for what they need. That way nobody needs to take a leap of faith. Do you see what I'm getting at here ? If not, see below.

Economics is as natural a part of the universe as gravity.

You believe in a 'universe' and you believe in 'gravity'. Do not impose those beliefs unto me, and do not attempt to engage in trade with me with your imaginary idolotry units. Do you understand this position? I reject belief in invisible things. Do not try to convince me to wear a mask either to protect from the invisible 'virus'.

Do you understand that if everyone in your comunity defaulted to this position 'third party authorities' (tryants or travelling merchants alike) would have actually no authority over you? Each one of your beliefs represnts concession of power to them; those who offer the beleif. Space, gravity, viruses pale in comparison to money; the pararsite elite have no greater power than economics because you believe them to such an extent you are willing to value everything else in your life in accordance to it; you use it to acquire what you need therefore you only use it - you do not question the underlying religion of it. After all, you are too busy 'making it' right? They just need keep you busy.

Improve your mind & body first and foremost; as you gain strength and comprehension your ecosystem will naturally emmanate from within to give you what you need everywhere else. You will not go back into the 'stone age' if you put in the honest struggle to maintain yourself and defend your needs; your capabilities, talents, skills, expertise, trading partners, and fruits of labour will not suddenly dissappear if you decide to reject money.

Thanks, its prudent to have a dialogue about these things if there is to be progress and not (((progress))) > So lets go back 100 000 years Into a ficticious period for all we know. Do you have proof 100,000 years ago is even a thing? Regardless, there were obviously past times with hardship and struggle - that will never change. Just that today our 'benefits' come at cost in other areas. There were past times probably with other benefits we cannot percieve today; because they've been robbed from our ancestors or more accurately - that our ancestors gave away or failed to defend; tricked themselves probably into the lure of money & greed. Anyway your economics make sense. The problem is: they are economics. Which is primarily based on the mass-religion of money. The belief that we must consent to a third party 'system' for the benefit of the many. I don't think it works at scale because you can never trust 'the many' because some of those many are easily exploited by a few and the resulting domino effect will soon have your sons & daughters changing genders. I am not proposing rejection of trade. I am proposing rejection of third party idolotry units. Any third party unit, even if only used by 2 neighbouring farmers to facilitate exchange of pigs for chickens, is an idol which requires belief to work. Even that system sure probably harmless in this context; a bit of accounting techniques to help accommodate a seasonal cycle as you suggested is not necessarily a problem when used in a small network of those you trust. It doesn't change the fact that there is belief involved however; and that the farmer who is at the end of the day holding the bag of 'units' and not chickens nor pigs is the one who has all the risk. A better system would be to ensure at all times in the exchange cycle that all parties receive something they need; you do not need imaginary idol units as you cannot eat them, so you don't need to use them even temporary there are ways for example using a 3rd farmer or a secondary product to engineer this so that even in off seasons everybody can exchange 1:1 for what they need. That way nobody needs to take a leap of faith. Do you see what I'm getting at here ? If not, see below. > Economics is as natural a part of the universe as gravity. You believe in a 'universe' and you believe in 'gravity'. Do not impose those beliefs unto me, and do not attempt to engage in trade with me with your imaginary idolotry units. Do you understand this position? I reject belief in invisible things. Do not try to convince me to wear a mask either to protect from the invisible 'virus'. Do you understand that if everyone in your comunity defaulted to this position 'third party authorities' (tryants or travelling merchants alike) would have actually no authority over you? Each one of your beliefs represnts concession of power to them; those who offer the beleif. Space, gravity, viruses pale in comparison to money; the pararsite elite have no greater power than economics because you believe them to such an extent you are willing to value everything else in your life in accordance to it; you use it to acquire what you need therefore you only use it - you do not question the underlying religion of it. After all, you are too busy 'making it' right? They just need keep you busy. Improve your mind & body first and foremost; as you gain strength and comprehension your ecosystem will naturally emmanate from within to give you what you need everywhere else. You will not go back into the 'stone age' if you put in the honest struggle to maintain yourself and defend your needs; your capabilities, talents, skills, expertise, trading partners, and fruits of labour will not suddenly dissappear if you decide to reject money.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

I think I am getting what you are pitching here. Freedom and independence. I love that in our people.

I said my piece, I wouldn't mind hearing more about how the world works from your perspective. In general, I understand the gist is to not believe in the invisible and believe only the tangible. I also understand that network effects and economics is the process of negotiating away freedom -- the more we value the system the less we value our selves.

I think I got that right, correct?

You made a few curious points:

1) Do you have proof 100,000 years ago is even a thing?

2) You believe in a 'universe' and you believe in 'gravity'.

3) ... engage in trade with me with your imaginary idolotry units.

Do you mean the above literally, as in, you DON'T believe in those concepts or do you mean to say that we know they are things but we just put too much weight on to them?

Or as you put it, we believe in those ideas so strongly and visualize them so much that we begin to idolatrize them to the extent that they control us and we trade away our ability to acti as individuals and enable parasites to occupy the system?

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

In general, I understand the gist is to not believe in the invisible and believe only the tangible. I also understand that network effects and economics is the process of negotiating away freedom -- the more we value the system the less we value our selves.

Legit interpretation. And dunno exactly how the world works but does seem we are all individuals within the sum of ALL. Including others on Poal. See Energy-In-Motion.

Do you mean the above literally, as in, you DON'T believe in those concepts or do you mean to say that we know they are things but we just put too much weight on to them?

It's not WHAT you believe it's THAT you belief. Any belief is a fixed, stagnant cancer in your mind. Serves only to block your natural adaption to the ever changing moment (reality).

Belief in an incomprehensible unverifiable unprovable past, in an invisible yet infinite outer space, a masonic 'theory' that evidently works everywhere density does but not quite in the same way when dealing with hypothetical incomprehensible unproven spinning space balls, and finally the belief in money - invisible units that the masses lie, cheat and murder each other for - these are just a few blatant beliefs that future generations will look back on in disgust for how long we perpetuated them for. And it is on us: easy to blame the Few but they are just exploiting our consent to their racket; our belief is the consent. Our tendancy to believe is what makes us weak and them strong. Stop believing, stop giving them power. Because it's not just large scale fantasies like 'space' or the 'coronavirus'. It's the Commie operative who shows up at your door with orders to escort you to the Gulag in a black van; your belief in his authority is what enables his authority. He must also believe the authority granted to him by his own so called authority, the Few who pay him to exert the so called authority upon you. Mass genocide, mass atrocities are only made possible by selfish believers who give away their authority and this applies to both the victim and the thug. Remove the belief from one and you have a chance. Remove belief from two and you have peace.

> In general, I understand the gist is to not believe in the invisible and believe only the tangible. I also understand that network effects and economics is the process of negotiating away freedom -- the more we value the system the less we value our selves. Legit interpretation. And dunno exactly how the world works but does seem we are all individuals within the sum of ALL. Including others on Poal. See Energy-In-Motion. > Do you mean the above literally, as in, you DON'T believe in those concepts or do you mean to say that we know they are things but we just put too much weight on to them? It's not WHAT you believe it's THAT you belief. Any belief is a fixed, stagnant cancer in your mind. Serves only to block your natural adaption to the ever changing moment (reality). Belief in an incomprehensible unverifiable unprovable past, in an invisible yet infinite outer space, a masonic 'theory' that evidently works everywhere density does but not quite in the same way when dealing with hypothetical incomprehensible unproven spinning space balls, and finally the belief in money - invisible units that the masses lie, cheat and murder each other for - these are just a few blatant beliefs that future generations will look back on in disgust for how long we perpetuated them for. And it *is* on us: easy to blame the Few but they are just exploiting our consent to their racket; our belief is the consent. Our tendancy to believe is what makes us weak and them strong. Stop believing, stop giving them power. Because it's not just large scale fantasies like 'space' or the 'coronavirus'. It's the Commie operative who shows up at your door with orders to escort you to the Gulag in a black van; your belief in his authority is what enables his authority. He must also believe the authority granted to him by his own so called authority, the Few who pay him to exert the so called authority upon you. Mass genocide, mass atrocities are only made possible by selfish believers who give away their authority and this applies to both the victim and the thug. Remove the belief from one and you have a chance. Remove belief from two and you have peace.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

Oh, this is getting really interesting. Would you mind if I keep on asking questions?

1) So, it sounds like we agree that your thesis on the surface doesn't really deal with whether or not something exists. Your thesis is that beyond the individual, the interconnections, relationships and systems built on that are what ought to be disbelieved?

Did I get that right?

2) However, you keep on bringing up that things like the past (and by an earlier comment gravity as well) are unverifiable and probably incomprehensably complex such that the human mind cannot comprehend them.

That would mean that your disbelief in the 'invisible' in all of its permutations goes a little bit deeper than just what I am interpreting in point #1. Questions:

a) Do you believe this conversation is happening? Or do you believe this is a figment of your imagination? Are you a figment of my imagination?

b) If we cannot tell what is real, how can we have meaningful conversation. I believe this is a meaningful conversation because I believe you exist despite you merely being a bunch of text on a screen that could be fed by extradimensional ai and this being merely a simulation that I can only exit briefly by taking DMT. Because, you see, I am really a machine elf and you are just a simulation of fulcrum.

How can I, as a machine elf, tell if you are real, if I am real and where the simulation begins and ends?

c) You must do something for a living. Whatever it is that you do, you are going to be measuring things and doing things. Are those measurements real or imaginary? Afterall the number 2 doesn't exist but 2 of something does at the macro level even though at the quantum level there is no 2 of anything and all is a function of a waveform going back and forth between a discreet packet and a wave.

If everything is unknowable and everything cannot be measure because math doesn't exist, how do you cross the street, code a line of software, measure where to cut a 2x4 or replace a blown head gasket?

//EDIT: I am being totally serious. I know I sound like a 12 year old philosopher. I'm using a tech troubleshooting method where you look at the problem, try to define the outer boundries first and then narrow the issue down to either one or a few subcomponents. Sometimes the problem nexus is several separate problems that interact in very discrete ways, but, we only ever give up when it's cheaper to buy a new component than repair an old one. What you are proposing has an intriguing set of boundries and at minimum either I am seeing more than is there, or there is more than I am seeing. I appreciate you playing along with this dummy.

Oh, this is getting really interesting. Would you mind if I keep on asking questions? 1) So, it sounds like we agree that your thesis on the surface doesn't really deal with whether or not something exists. Your thesis is that beyond the individual, the interconnections, relationships and systems built on that are what ought to be disbelieved? Did I get that right? 2) However, you keep on bringing up that things like the past (and by an earlier comment gravity as well) are unverifiable and probably incomprehensably complex such that the human mind cannot comprehend them. That would mean that your disbelief in the 'invisible' in all of its permutations goes a little bit deeper than just what I am interpreting in point #1. Questions: a) Do you believe this conversation is happening? Or do you believe this is a figment of your imagination? Are you a figment of my imagination? b) If we cannot tell what is real, how can we have meaningful conversation. I believe this is a meaningful conversation because I believe you exist despite you merely being a bunch of text on a screen that could be fed by extradimensional ai and this being merely a simulation that I can only exit briefly by taking DMT. Because, you see, I am really a machine elf and you are just a simulation of fulcrum. How can I, as a machine elf, tell if you are real, if I am real and where the simulation begins and ends? c) You must do something for a living. Whatever it is that you do, you are going to be measuring things and doing things. Are those measurements real or imaginary? Afterall the number 2 doesn't exist but 2 of something does at the macro level even though at the quantum level there is no 2 of anything and all is a function of a waveform going back and forth between a discreet packet and a wave. If everything is unknowable and everything cannot be measure because math doesn't exist, how do you cross the street, code a line of software, measure where to cut a 2x4 or replace a blown head gasket? //EDIT: I am being totally serious. I know I sound like a 12 year old philosopher. I'm using a tech troubleshooting method where you look at the problem, try to define the outer boundries first and then narrow the issue down to either one or a few subcomponents. Sometimes the problem nexus is several separate problems that interact in very discrete ways, but, we only ever give up when it's cheaper to buy a new component than repair an old one. What you are proposing has an intriguing set of boundries and at minimum either I am seeing more than is there, or there is more than I am seeing. I appreciate you playing along with this dummy.

parent
link

Load more (1 reply)