Saturday, December 19, 2009

Intra-Objective Communication of the Subjective…

Hi SB, good post. I’m trying to find a compliable ground of communication between your ideas of, let’s just use Lesley’s term__altruism, to generally represent part of your ideas, as your geometric ideas are not in dispute with my ideas__to show possible areas of union between your totalities of ideas and mine.

We need a middle ground of passing right brained altruistic ideas into the pragmatic and practical ground of left brained logical, social and material reality. This is why I’ve so often mentioned ‘esthetics’ as the idea that can convert the right brain volitions, altruism, etc., into left brained values of liberty, etc., which are compatible and compliable with left brained mixed pragmatism, yet a more incentivized right brained altruism, and a less incentivized left brained greed, than we presently have. What I’m meaning is a method of wedding infinite psychology, the objective substrate of science, into a more finite possibility of true social improvement, possibly through a new intra-objective communication of the subjective, without losing any of the value of the subjective contributions to social reality.

I think we are both looking for a universal algorithm of both geometry and evolution, which is fully compatible with both hemisphere’s of the minds. The algorithm must be capable of passing right brained psychology into left brained reality__in other words, how do infinite intuitions plug into finite concepts? Imo, this algorithm is more solvable at the international actions level of the interactions of nations, than as a personal algorithm, since nations’ epistemology has reduced the complexity to less terms involved. At this level there are three major methods of solving differences, 1.politics, 2.money, and 3.war. Of course, the method that relates universally from the international level to the personal is 1.the political__and I don’t think the personal-political has yet been explored thoroughly enough, by us or anyone else, as a real solution. I think it may allow us access to the universal algorithm we are seeking.

Selfless-Semi-Altruistic Government --> E=1/5X --> The Geometry of Incentivized Liberty…

100% Altruism = No Altruism__So, the solution must be a semi-systemic solution --> E=1/5X…

The old method was Pareto’s 80%-20% law, of poverty to wealth ratio. Presently, it’s about 90%-10% market law, of poverty to wealth ratio. The selfless-semi-altruistic government of a fully geometric incentivized liberty, would be about a 60%-40% law, of middle-class well-being of all, to wealth ratio__A much fairer and sensible ratio…

The E=1/5X ratio of selfless-semi-altruistic government is a public owned market system, in competition against private owned free-market greed, to allow public and private market laws to be sliding time scale changed, to the 60%-40% ratio over ten years__to work the magic of the most for all, and the esthetic best order possible__as a partially incentivized system is absolutely necessary to rescue all citizens from the horrors of a possible totalitarian communism, down the road__as history clearly shows, any nation can easily evolve into the despised totalitarianisms, as even past democracies have…

We must get America, and the rest of the world back to a sensible scientific methodology of actionable intelligence, or all our gooses are cooked__Mother Goose in the nuclear frying pan, ain’t a pretty picture, but that’s where we’re headed, if we don’t wake up…

The sliding time scaled laws, I’m referring to, must have real teeth__that means a minimum absolute fine of 10% of total gross value of businesses and corporations not complying__Otherwise, we have no chance of any form of semi-altruistic-government, what-so-ever…

Welcome to the future…

2 comments:

professor cz said...

It’s not about Greed

There are between 7 and 14 articles and blogs a day all identifying the crisis of 2008, CEO behavior and bankers bonuses as all about greed. We are quickly moving towards an accusatory cultural position that if one gets too much (a relative term) then one is filled with greed. It is similar to the diagnosis of narcissism that has been grossly misused and misapplied. Misused to the degree where if one is selfish or lacks empathy or takes more, one is called a narcissist. This places the accuser in the position of blaming those who have more and fails to understand what motivates them to engage in this behavior.
What brought about the banking crisis in America was not about greed, it was about the pathological need to increase one’s status. Studies have demonstrated that high levels of testosterone do not necessarily lead to a macho man hell bent on being aggressively consumptive but a man excessively focused on status, filled with envy, and an overwhelming desire to have what the other guy has. Consider this: At a “gin and tonic” party at a mansion of a successful banker an attendee reported the following. “After I got my drink our host led us to his greenhouse and showed his magnificent collection of valuable and delicate orchids. It was his hobby and he would travel the world collecting rare and exotic plants. Upon return to the house I could not help but notice two sets of women; an old or original group of wives at one end of the large room and a group of trophy wives at the other end, nervously eyeing each other.” What drives these men to engage in one-upmanship is not greed — but one-up-man ship status. They see their colleagues with a more expensive car, they start thinking about getting a one, they see a colleague with a jet and they have to have one too, they see a colleague with a beauty and they want one. Houses, cars, wives, art, orchids, watches, office, etc.; these are status symbols and for these men they are exceedingly important. They become a measure of their self worth. The parties, the country club, the university club, the yacht club, and the workplace are all places where executives parade their stuff. Many suggest this is nothing more than narcissistic characters impressing others to obtain love. But this may not be the case. They live and work within a culture that is status driven and issues of exclusion and inclusion are associated with the attainment of status. In this culture those who have more create envy and they aggressively engage in the struggle for ever higher status. The “my d--k is bigger than yours,” is ever present. The truth of the matter is underneath they believe they will always an inadequate d--k.

Lloyd Gillespie - Comments said...

I don't mean to take away from your opinion, but it sounds like greed to me__all the way__just the words are changed. At base, it's pure and simple greed, of our reptilian Trickster greed processor..

That's my opinion, but then I place more emphases on the stupidity factors of all cultures, than anything else__especially the jealousies and incomeptances of academics, if ya know what I mean...