Psychology

warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home2/yojoaorg/public_html/yenom/drupal/modules/taxonomy/taxonomy.pages.inc on line 33.
psychology

Lovely Lies - Damn Lies - and I.P.

Title-animation

Confusing the intangible with the tangible

Commenting on my post of December 12 ,2007 — What's wrong with the GNU GPL?

Alan wrote, “I believe the core argument in this post is: "Copyright is one of the state's basic mechanisms for seducing weak minds into sanctioning governmental violence to enforce contrived rights who's only hope of possibly being realized lies in the menacing threat of arrogant aggression." Without commenting on the rest of the post (which I mostly agree with), I feel this main point needs rebuttal.
    While the post in question concerned various (largely laudable) observations concerning the GNU General Public License, Alan did identify the single sentence that best captures my primary core argument. It could consequently be argued that this terribly belated response should follow Alan's comment under my original provocative post. I have, instead elected to create a new main (root level) post for the following reasons:
      1) Alan's comments far exceeds the scope of the main post.
      2) It's my unwary way of dignifying all my brutish ape-like chest pounding that has preceded this event.


Alan, graciously continues, “First, let me point out the extreme irony in this idea. It is no doubt that Mr. Z. Clark is strongly of the libertarian persuasion (as I am), sharing the two most important core beliefs of abhorrence from unnecessary force, and utmost respect for (physical) property rights. Yet, this is an argument over an abhorrence for intellectual property (IP) rights.
    Thanks, a better lead-in would be hard to come by. A no doubt conclusion (accusation) of my strong libertarian persuasion merits a few shared reflections however. I wonder if said persuasion is evident from this blog's contents or has more to do with personal knowledge of say the fact I ran against D. Gephardt as a Libertarian. In any event, the average libertarian may well cringe at any Z.Clark associations. If I had the stomach to investigate such things, Libertarians would likely still prove to be the least offensive political party in the US. But like the GPL, the mere exercise of either lends credence to a system which is ill founded at base. It's quaint at best to hope Libertarians can improve/salvage what the ‘Founding Fathers’ could not (i.e. the morbid transition from confederacy, to republic, to democracy on to socialism is systemic in nature and is fated to unfold as such despite the bloody patriot's best intentions). A flattering distinction for the GPL is that it hopefully sets a precedence (wittingly or not) of binding the machine against itself.
    To more directly contest the issue however, Alan apparently considers my inability to equate the “physical” horse in my front yard to the “intellectual” unicorn in Danny's imagination as “extreme irony” ... hmmm. All are invited to rephrase the foregoing to more advantageously reflect their perspective. Nevertheless the real crux of the problem I see lies in first 1) inventing then 2) claiming and finally 3) protecting ‘rights’ in the first place.

“blinding yourself to clear context” comment

Orwell vs. Slop

How did I cause such confusion??

Commenting on my previous post “Levels of Wealth” Part 1, Alan said in part:
... You: An example in honor of Alan's IP sentiments follows: Australian Attorney-General Philip Ruddock in his press release ...
    I would prefer you not so honor me. I find this drivel repulsive as do you. I hope you did not seriously relate this crap to any of my IP arguments. ...

    Excuse me. My above quoted lead-in was not intended to honor anyone per se (as another's sentiment could be honored while the person himself is not). I was merely interested in dissecting an example of authoritarian political blather. The type of rhetoric emitted by the dear Australian Attorney-General is hardly anything special and equally precious statements could have been readily gleaned in just about any page of any newspaper. I just focused in on an IP related instance because that theme had merited your defense. There was no interest in implying that you two were particularly in agreement. That being said however, I was taken back by your vehement reaction against Ruddock. He was providing no defense of IP at all, but was merely dutifully reporting a change to the statutes in a pathetic yet wholly typical newspeak manner.

Alan continued:
... I do find your arguments against Ruddock's statements to be rather poor logic. While the context of the included quotes ... are clearly in reference to the changes in Australian law, you misinterpret them to reference technological capabilities and ignore the certainty that they refer only to reduction in legal prohibitions. That is a strawman argument which is way beneath your capability for logical argument.
    What I believe I did (and as clearly as I could) was merely to demonstrate how they announce changes in the statutes by choosing vocabulary that is literally consistent only with technological issues ruled by the laws of physics. I even went through the exercise of rewording his statement to read accurate and semantically correct. So it is intriguing to imagine that anyone could honestly believe that I literally misinterpreted Ruddock. To argue that I misrepresented him might be a more legitimate attack.

The thought provoking Eric Harris-Braum

Moyi+Mars

The Spiritual within the Mundane

Back on April 14th Eric Harris-Braun wrote to me in part:
“....I thought I'd point you to my latest writeup on open money: http://openmoney.info I think you might be most interested in the theory page, ....

As it turned out, this email came in on a partially forgotten account, so I didn't even see it until June 21st (over 9 weeks later). Embarrassed, I apologized for the delay; and then continued:
Interestingly, I'd been thinking about you recently and just a few days ago I was going through much the material on your WEB sites (I even logged into my account at http://alpha.openmoney.info/om.cgi). And yes, I actually did read with much interest your "theory page". In fact it was the most intriguing document I came across that day. So let me recount my most notable impressions:

1. You open with an introduction on the Tradeable - Measurable - Acknowledgeable paradigm. I needed to reread and wrangle with it a bit to get this new perspective into focus. However it was worth the effort and could possibly provide the basis for some valuable elaborations. It's when one gets into rewriting a piece that you really need to devote maximum effort to do the concepts justice and hopefully come up with a real contribution.

2. Regarding concepts such as “Wealth Acknowledgment” and your interest in setting the stage where the creativity of others can extend our horizons beyond anything we have yet considered — these are things I relate to instantly. Many of your objectives are so much in accord with my YeNom idea that it's almost eerie.

3. There is, I propose, a extremely pertinent & significant factor that desperately needs recognition in your theory page. A lot is said regarding the scarcity of money and your/our proposal to eliminate that scarcity through the creation of (local) currencies. However, the crucial thing that is left unsaid (and will likely make readers uncomfortable on at least a subconscious level) regards misgivings about possible inflationary factors. I think it is worth addressing this issue head on. The two main distinctions between the proprietary money supplied by governments and the type we want to create is a) what is being monetized, and b) how it is introduced into circulation. In the first instance, government debt is the preferred poison. I'd even argue that the very foundation of such a system is consequently a form of anti-wealth, with more & more debt not being a positive thing. The basis of our systems lie essentially in promises of individual personal performance insured by the issuers best interest to maintain a respectable reputation. And the more we have of this is a positive thing. Another night & day difference exists with the methods of introduction. In the former, money is injected into the economic area via bank loans (so it is never free and always burdened with interest). Plus it trickles down from the money moguls to the producers. Our alternative is the exact opposite of this! Not to mention that said debts (the fodder for their proprietary money) were created by the government to either fund their welfare programs (which essentially saps recipients' motivation for gainful endeavor) or, they are entering the market place to buy-up/divert labor and materials to satisfy their needs for arms, surveillance and policing (which of course tends to drive prices up). ...

That very same morning, Eric responded saying:

Me? ... Delusional??

Confusion

Love to supplant fear: The Meta War Worth Fighting

Well, to the extent that any sorry soul is ill integrated into the status quo's local matrix of misfeasance, they will be perceived as delusional by their peers. While the foregoing could portend an ensuing defense (on my part as a nonconformist), let me wholly dispel that anticipation by emphatically declaring up front, “Of course I'm delusional - highly delusional, in fact.” That being said, allow me the liberty to precisely define “delusional” for the purpose of this post. In saying, “delusional”, I refer to our species' tendency or affinity to delusion and insanity, rather than the condition of harboring any particular set of delusions. For a succinct insight into delusion per se, it's hard to beat the Devil's Dictionary:

DELUSION, n. The father of a most respectable family,
comprising Enthusiasm, Affection, Self-denial, Faith,
Hope, Charity and many other goodly sons and daughters.
____________________________________________

All hail, Delusion! Were it not for thee
The world turned topsy-turvy we should see;
For Vice, respectable with cleanly fancies,
Would fly abandoned Virtue's gross advances.







Mumfrey Mappel

Now regarding said affinity to delusion, we might identify it more forcefully as powerful propensities or even hopelessly ingrained habits. Nevertheless, persons strongly susceptible to delusion could, in principle, suffer far fewer actual delusions than individuals with considerably less severe inclinations. Indeed, a highly delusion prone person who is sufficiently honest with herself may notice particularly strong emotional reactions to various issues which serve to distract from, or even prohibit logical analysis. This awareness in turn holds the potential for an avalanche of self-sincerity and the wholesale eradication of many ghosts and delusions. Two aspects of this process are most notable. First, the annihilation of dearly held precious beliefs can be accomplished not only with runaway dispatch, but also with negligible emotional discomfort. And second, the end result is remarkably stable; so regression back to delusion is not a threat. What this tells us is that many such beliefs, regardless of how vehemently proclaimed and emotionally celebrated, are not really believed in the first place (albeit defending said delusions can lead to a horrible and early death).

Save the Children!

FlyBaby

Society: Empowered by the Individual perverted by the state

Save the Children?” What exactly is that supposed to mean?? Well the current main stream thought-pool which is huge enough to easily immerse both the Moral Majority and Greenpeace would instantly translate this to “DONATE”. Which in turn means, “YOU give MONEY to THEM”. And by “THEM” we obviously don't mean the children themselves nor their parents and not even any local community centers; but instead officially trustworthy & awesomely affluent organizations endowed to the hilt with adequate overhead. This is an undeniably valid premise as the very same (anti)thought-pool invariably holds that money makes the world go round and 501(c)3 organizations know best.

To quickly clean the preceding up a bit, it first behooves one to refrain from using a term like “thought-pool” to refer to a condition which serves more to paralyze rather than stimulate the mind. A more apt reference would be “meme pool” (or possibly “stool”). Next, as I'm relentlessly prone to promote, the real miracle of human society lies in the exponential advantages found in cooperation and division of labor. Since money can powerfully enable such mutually profitable interactions incredibly well, the more cunning have managed to securely monopolize this otherwise naturally free medium.

So if one now wishes to consider saving the poor children then the last thing you'd want to instill in their minds is a crippling dependence on a proprietary currency issued by the very same system that left them outside the monetary loop in the first place. Real empowerment would reside in the creation of their own local currencies potentially based upon the YeNom concept. The first and foremost matter a free enterprise system should address is its own life blood; namely an open flexible monetary scheme that is customizable to specifically address any need.

While children make for endearing sentimental targets, other instances of victimization are worth considering as well. And in the case of traditional money, robbery is perhaps the most notorious. This can occur in three broad modes. In order of severity these are: 1) counterfeiting, 2) swindling and 3) direct person on person violation. Yea, I know counterfeiting as number one must sound pretty strange even though the state likes to make a big deal out of this whenever they wish to issue a downgraded currency to their benefit. But I'm talking about the mobsters within the self-sanctioned system (not from the outside). In other-words, it is the Federal Reserve System itself that should be construed as the master counterfeiter in violation of the Constitution. As is the case with lotteries, the state simply can't condone competition. Precious few, however, care to acknowledge things like this. The only news people crave to hear and worry about revolve around gruesome individuals like Seung-Hui Cho while the insanity of say Hiroshima and Nagasaki is accepted in stride.

The Problem With Anarchy

Anarchist

Mon Apr 17 21:23 2006 – too much bull - too little beef

Which is the Real Anarchist?

Webster's Third International Dictionary, succinctly defines anarchism as, “a political theory opposed to all forms of government and governmental restraint and advocating voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups in order to satisfy their needs.”
Britannica-Webster reads, “a political theory that holds all government authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocates a society based on voluntary cooperation of individuals and groups.”
And the New Webster Handy College Dictionary tersely states, “the political doctrine that all governments should be abolished.”
From wiktionary we get:
  anarchy
1. absence of hierarchy, power and authority
2. absence of any form of political authority or government
3. political disorder and confusion
4. absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose
5. without rules or laws (syn: anomie, anomy)
6. self-government

Finally my standby Random House Webster's yields:
an-ar-chism (an'uhr kiz uhm)   n.
1. a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.
2. the methods or practices of anarchists.
[1635-45]

Now that's all patently prettier than poetry and even in good keeping with its Greek roots - so where's the rub? Well as we've seen with “monetize”, there are always plenty of quasi-literates who need to bend straight clear concepts into twisted pretzels promoting perverse purposes.

For a good sampling of what I'm talking about just drop “anarchy” into your favorite search engine, and you'll quickly find this simple idea contorted & complicated. The following quote characterizes one major branch of colonization as raw as you'd want: “Anarchism is really a synonym for socialism. The anarchist is primarily a socialist whose aim is to abolish the exploitation of man by man.” - Daniel Guérin, Anarchism. As you might anticipate, we also find: 1) anarcho-syndicalists who crave a high degree of societal structure, 2) worker's control of the means of production and distribution, 3) opposition to personal property ownership, 4) parecon, etc. Particulars include: Russian anarchists Mikhail Bakunin (1814-1876) and Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921) - Mutual Aid, Fields Factories and Workshops plus The Conquest of Bread, plus Pierre Joseph Proudhon - What is Property?.

The Irrepressible Lure of Insanity

Moral Leaders

Fri Mar 17 10:04:41 2006 — Loving Mommy More than Truth

We've previously cited the vital increases of production via the division of labor and cooperative effort.  For a more primordial perspective the word “production” might better be replaced with “subsistence” or even “survival”.  Yet before addressing the dominant bearing money has on these fundamental means of sustaining human existence;  we should first note that (like it or not) both are social (others oriented) phenomenon.  So from conception to the casket ‘others’ are a very real life & death determinant.  The significance of this is greatly amplified when one considers that our ‘survival instinct’ or ‘will to live’ is persuasively rumored to be the most ingrained cardinal commander of our strongest impulsions.  The preceding will hopefully help account for a human propensity found in a quote I encountered just yesterday - namely:
    When I was seven years old, I was once reprimanded by my mother for an act of collective brutality in which I had been involved at school.  A group of seven-year-olds had been teasing and tormenting a six-year-old.  “It is always so,” my mother said.  “You do things together which not one of you would think of doing alone.”  ...  Wherever one looks in the world of human organization, collective responsibility brings a lowering of moral standards.  The military establishment is an extreme case, an organization which seems to have been expressly designed to make it possible for people to do things together which nobody in his right mind would do alone.
                -- Freeman Dyson, Weapons and Hope

Note that Dyson is suggesting that the same basic principle operant in a spontaneous episode involving a few seven-year-olds also applies to thousands of men in their prime totally immersed into a tightly controlled, highly regimented, patently propagandic environment.  Well to that I'd just have to say -- pretty perceptive!  Then there is that phrase of his.....

____________________________


Syndicate content