“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.

Eric's “Levels of Wealth” Part 1

* From Eric Harris-Braum's openMoney.inf WEB site*                        — Why I was confused although Alan was not.

wealth3part

Commenting on my previous post, The thought provoking Eric Harris-Braum, Alan worte, “In response to Harris-Braun's openmoney.info page, I would like to say I agree. Specifically, this is an EXCELLENT perspective on money and wealth, with an honesty and clarity and depth that is rare.
Your first impression says, ‘You [i.e. Eric] 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.’ I sure hope you provide elaboration on this. I found the paradigm very easy to understand.

    Elaboration on a personal inability?  Another's insight into this would perhaps be more valid than my own.  Anyway, in Eric's “Levels of Wealth” the circle of Acknowledgeable wealth is more sizable than the merely Measurable, while actually Tradeable wealth (the stuff of mega-billions of GNP) is the smallest of all.  This concept is especially appealing for its propensity to put the realm of traditional money into perspective.  Now then, the “Levels of Wealth” oval graphic moreover implies (to me) that Tradeable is a subset of Measurable which in turn is a subset of Acknowledgeable.  At the very least, this is a comfortable assumption due to the terribly counter intuitive notion of saying that Tradeable wealth is NOT (i.e. excluded from the set of) Measurable and in turn insisting that the Measurable isn't Acknowledgeable.  This would, for me, constitute an overly extreme distancing of these words from their common casual meanings.  Nevertheless Eric, could potentially be advocating exactly this when he writes, “Acknowledgeable Wealth: Friendship, beauty, freedom, civility, culture, happiness, integrity, reputation--these are all forms of acknowledgeable wealth. They are neither tradable nor objectively measurable because their impact is only felt subjectively.”(emphasis added)  Then when Eric teaches that Acknowledgeable wealth are “relationships between systems”, I find myself fumbling with the notion of “beauty” and “freedom” (from the previous sentenece) as relationships between systems.  An excellent recognition of the “interdependent” nature of wealth levels, is followed with a whole section on “Wealth Acknowledgment” which focuses on Tradeable wealth issues.  So I guess this “Acknowledgment” is very much distinguished from (if not the antitheisis of) the former term “Acknowledgeable”.  Perhaps it is unfortunate that the things I've just cited overly interfere with my ability to grasp new perspectives.  However an agreeable benefit of the doubt posture where we all ‘know’ more or less what we're talking about is increasingly objectionable for this student to adopt.  My way of developing his theme would be to start with Acknowledgeable wealth and then examine Measurable and Tradeable as clearly identified natural subsets.

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:

What's wrong with the GNU GPL?

Antigua

No Orwellian Rights Recognized

When I first read about the Free Software Foundation's GNU General Public License, I was truly moved by the stroke of genius it represented! Moreover, my enthusiasm has not waned. This respect carries over to the Creative Commons efforts as well. 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. (Whereas a peace respecting mind would only confer the notion of a ‘right’ to concepts that prevail as working solutions where coercive enforcement is needed only rarely if ever.) The beauty of Copyleft, of course, is that while it is a copyright, it nevertheless works to undue most everything a copyright is traditionally used for. Consequently, all those who conceived, perfected, and use copyleft schemes will always receive my support. However, I cannot personally use it. The reason being of course, is that the freedom campaign that I'm promoting cannot be compromised by employing the threat of legalized violence against anyone who has not willfully and actively subscribed to the ‘jurisdiction’/agent who will be carrying out any coercive enforcement.

During the last incredibly short three months, I have put a portion of my photography onto commons.wikimedia.org. Devout readers can verify this by checking commons' categories Honduras and Antigua_Guatemala. My files are all distinguished with file names that are exactly 22 characters long. All my photos currently under Antigua_Guatemala start with “GT056-Antigua” while those from Honduras begin with “HN”. The exif “Comment” of every photo carries this notice: “As no compulsive ‘jurisdiction’ can morally confer|deny any RIGHT, my photo is put in the PUBLIC DOMAIN to best advance art & integrity. Use file and visit http://yojoa.org/ego to be paid.

The ‘NOT DOING’ of licensing

The Secure EGO

Making Paying a Pleasure

Blog wise, I've certainly not kept up with my duties and objectives. Instead of reducing the times between posts, it looks more like I'm hell bent on setting new records for falling behind (Dr.Alan posted apt comments regarding this).

I've just finished composing a more difficult than average article for my new 'EGO' page (which is essentially a plan to pay persons YeNoms for using my PUBLIC DOMAIN photographic files). I was intending, of course, to post a blog covering this new initiative after I'd actually made some photography publicly available. But then I noticed the date of my last entry here and felt a little sick. So to help feel better, I'm knocking this out posthaste with another post to hopefully follow soon. So far now, the text related my concepts on 'EGO' and the future is copied below:

The options sought for obtaining goals can be squelched by the social environment one operates in. It is, however, eminent that viable goal options will eventually emerge as society matures. The option I'm trying to nurture promises to free the creative ego from the current threats of institutionalized violence. If the meaning of an “Eminent Goal Option” is now clarified then click here to jump ahead - otherwise lets further examine this word for word.

The “Eminent”

The good news first. Excluding the outside chance of some glorious war and the wholesale devastation of the physical environment, our world is unstoppably spiraling toward ever enhanced levels of rationality and an unfolding utopia. This is no compliment nor show of faith in our species. Instead, it's a mere recognition of the basic fact that in due time and despite ourselves, superior results inevitably take hold over inferior ones. Capitalism's triumph over communism, had nothing to do with the effectiveness, validity nor vehemence of any rhetorical campaigns. It had to do with clean food in the mouth and fitting apparel for the ego. Likewise with slavery (past & present) in the ‘land of the free’. Lincoln's obsession was hardly bent on freeing anyone, but in maintaining the Union. Actually, considering the nonviolent intent of the South to simply secede, the North's reaction itself constitutes an act of aggression to subjugate (enslave) the South and strip her of any sense of self sovereignty. Hence field slavery failed on its own merits (without heroic outside force). That is, compulsory servitude doesn't work - at least not compared to the cotton gin or a farm combine. This of course, only begs the point that human slaves of whatever caliber cannot perform at the same level as liberated egos.

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.

Yojoa.ORG

LakeYojoa

Crying needs & opportunities

Thanks in part to innovative sites like whois.domaintools.com and www.aboutus.org this blog has enjoyed a significant jump in traffic. And while an indignant lapse has been suffered since my last post, this should not be interpreted as any wane of commitment. Nor is there a lack of material and strategies to examine. The problem instead lies in managing dearly limited hours to best advance ones aspirations. Most recently my time has been focused on a project to advance and develop the Lake Yojoa area of Honduras (see Yojoa.org). Given the traffic increase however (along with the merits of our goal), I now commit to a minimum of two worthy post per month.

A major problem Honduras has is an incredibly weak system of land registration resulting in extremely insecure real estate ownership. The main issues are three fold: 1) To paraphrase the World Bank; it's estimated that only about 30 percent of the 2.6 million land parcels in the country [1.8 million urban, 0.8 million rural] are properly registry [the total value of these extra-legal assets is estimated to be $12 billion, which could be used to mobilize credit]. 2) Very little real estate has ever been correctly surveyed. 3) Registering a property in no way guarantees against (past or future) conflicting registrations. Conditions such as these are understandably sufficient to subdue serious investment interests. Consequently, efforts lent to correcting these inadequacies should reasonably result in a valuable service.

Moreover, Yojoa.org is actively approved by associates who's support help secure my future as a responsible provider. Nevertheless, my personal principle passion is the introduction of alternative monetary solutions into this mix. The rural areas of Honduras is just one of many finely irrefutable instances of stalled & strangled economic development due merely to a lack of monopolistic 3rd party money/tickets/tokens.

Land rich but cash poor. Why not use credits based on land titles to relieve the liquidity crunch? Will keep you posted through this blog, plus your reflective input is eagerly welcomed.

Response to “The Process Revolution:”

remake-it

January 14th, 2007 at 1:41 pm

EHB
* Check out Erick's blog here *


 Eric Harris-Braum wrote “proof is in the pudding at ehb” Saying:

Damned if we do — Double Damned if we don't ...

zClark

Ultra tolerance for individuals – Zero tolerance for unilateral coercion!
* Searching for the common ground between brothers in arms *

Greetings Fellow Advocates of Jean-François Noubel's The Transitioner:

I have gone through this site's entire “Who is Who” list and read everyone's introduction. Allow me to comment on two observations. First is the surprisingly encouraging caliber of the individuals supporting Mr. Noubel's undertaking. Second is the expected general sense of encouragement & positivism. Unfortunately, too many entries -despite an upbeat intro and promise of more to follow- have not been updated for over two years. Consequently, I beg your understanding if this commentary fails to substantiate the festive optimism traditionally sung by would be visionaries/futurist.

First, I'm in enthusiastic accord with the basic concepts promoted here. In fact, I'm frequently inclined to take a winning concept much further that those who seek virtue in compromise & middle of the road postures. For example, if we concede that burning select women to death for inconformity (i.e. witchcraft) is a bit excessive, then a laudable legislator might gain glory for advocating a more humane demise (per a propitious poison for instance). My closed minded objective however, would aim for nothing less than total tolerance (i.e. malicious targeting of no one). Admittedly, such full fledged commitments could be construed as radical – which is also an apt way to characterize the grand social architects like Hillary & Hitler. So how does one turbo blast an agenda to dimensions opposite of the spectrum occupied but all those goodly idealist committed to compelling everyone else into their superior world views? Well, it's not all that difficult – we just need to take freedom seriously. I like to view it as the not-doing (a Carlos Castaneda concept) of Social Engineering. This simply translates to an absolute unadulterated respect for individual volition — a fundamental inviolable prerequisite for a truly rational society. As meritorious this train of thought is, further consideration need be deferred to my blog, or Lysander Spooner's No Treason. The pertinent point here is merely to underscore the fact that most empowerment proposals offered as an elective freewill option to individuals will not only be personally well received, but may even be advocated more vigorously by me than its originator.

____________________________


Syndicate content