Socio-economic and cultural movements
Dharmadeva
outlook. Global unity must grow organically from the
local/regional level, taking into account the sentiments
of the local populace, so that there may be something like the sum total of
all ethnic groups, but still a bouquet of flowers with different
expressions.
For this Prout talks about:
1/ people's culture and tradition; and
2/ their economc activity.
Common culture and shared traditions create a certain
cultural legacy, which is expressed in various ways
depending on the culture. Seen together with the
economc potential and traditions of the area, each area
can develop its unique potential. Thus the
economic/cultural activities of Navajo Indians in the
South Western USA will be different from those of the
farmers in California.
Any attempt to stifle local cultural expression will be detrimental to
people's psychology. Suppression of culture leads to psycho-economic
exploitation. Any political program must be free from
any kind of cultural superiority in order to be of benefit
for the local people.
Prout support the rights of a people to establish local autonomy. People
will not be interested in universalism as long as their rights to
determine their own future is curtailed. For the whole
to be strong, the parts must also be strong.
Eg, top down decisions by people in Melbourne cannot decide the
future or way of life of aborigines living out in the remote areas or in
Tasmania.
Universalism is the key. Geo-political identity must then grow
into humanistic patriotism, love for all peoples. In
other words, while the spirit of PROUT is on the one hand
regional, its spirit must also evoke universalism,
otherwise narrow sentiments will arise.
The problem with "One Nation parties" is that they generally see all
from the perspective/intererests of white/dominant
peoples, and thereby create an artificial sense of
unity, which sometimes has expressed itself as
Nazism or Fascism.
Individuals express themselves
according to their inner psychology/identity. A group of
people has a collective cultural energy/synthesis which is reflected
in culture, attitudes, likes, dislikes, language etc. When
a people's synergy is destroyed, the culture breaks
down and exploitation sets in. For colonized peoples, a
renewed sense of synergy is important and should
be supported. (When the Native American Ghost Dancers
became active in the 1880's in America, the US
Government quickly outlawed it as it was seen as a
threat to the interests of white settlers. )
Populism is not always truly supportive of all
people and cannot automatically be likened to a socio-economic/cultural
movment. A "One Nation" party without the above
elements (plus a few more) will not be representative
of real people's movement; such narrow populist
movements are detrimental to the harmonious
development of humanity.
---
'The main characteristic of PROUT-based socioeconomic movements
is that they aim to guarantee the comprehensive, multifarious
liberation of humanity.' P R Sarkar
People's News Agency
is a free news, views, analysis and literature
service for the progressive minded.
Send email to: majo...@igc.org subscribe pna-news
PROUT - PROgressive Utilisation Theory http://www.prout.org
New Renaissance: A Journal for Social and Spiritual Awakening:
http://www.ru.org
rdr
On the off chance that your name is actually your birthname name than I am
sorry. And though I dislike the new age movement, I do not dislike you. I do
not even know you and figure you are probably a decent, albeit IMHO deluded,
you man, being. What I am trying to say is that I write to poke fun at the
message, not the messenger.
That being said,
Dharmadeva wrote in message
<77nbsk$7da$2...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>...
>PROUT stands for regional application and universal
>outlook. Global unity must grow organically from the
>local/regional level, taking into account the sentiments
>of the local populace, so that there may be something like the sum total of
>all ethnic groups, but still a bouquet of flowers with different
>expressions.
A bouquet of flowers are arranged according to the whims of man. They are
already dead and slowly withering in their vase. It is the wild flowers
growing free which are adapting, living life to it's fullest. Our present
system is a like bunch of tended gardens, This is well enough because, (I
started to write something here and then saw it sounding so much like Chance
Gardener, I just couldn't :-), luckily we are not flowers, we can help to
change the garden we are in or we can get up and go to another for any
number of reasons. Variety is the spice of life and Global unity would leave
us nowhere to go.
I will admit that it is a romantic notion but I do not see it as a workable
one. What does PROUT mean by "grow organically"? Does PROUT mean that global
unity must spring forth naturally? Then it stands to reason that PROUT is
defeating it's own purpose by telling people how it should happen.
Do you follow my logic ?
<<<<<<<<<<snip more PROUT Based new age mumbo jumbo snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry I don't have the time to continue this, but at least this simple
question should be answerable.
Your fellow global inhabitant,
rdr
Fight Hunger in your own backyard, Plant a Y2K Victory Garden
Drink Speights, Lose your mates :-) and keep care of that darn cup.
Dharmadeva
>Dharmadeva,
>
>On the off chance that your name is actually your birthname name than I am
>sorry. And though I dislike the new age movement,
So do you love the status quo? You know the so called NA movement has many
aspects. There is a lot of good and well developed thought in it. Would
you call Theodore Roszak new age. There are loonies here and there, but
there are loonies in the status quo to. How many sects have the status quo
created, eg Michael Jackson, Spice girls, all manner of soap operas and
silly love songs. These are all delusions and none of them have any depth,
they appeal to simple notions of existence and simple minds. There are far
worse things than new age movements. Anyway history has also resulted in
large scale changes not from normal people but those on the edge courageous
enough to challenge.
I do not dislike you. I do
>not even know you and figure you are probably a decent, albeit IMHO
deluded,
scub the last part. I do plenty enough thinking and action thanks.
>you man, being. What I am trying to say is that I write to poke fun at the
>message, not the messenger.
Truly.
>That being said,
>
>Dharmadeva wrote in message
><77nbsk$7da$2...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>...
>>PROUT stands for regional application and universal
>>outlook. Global unity must grow organically from the
>>local/regional level, taking into account the sentiments
>>of the local populace, so that there may be something like the sum total
of
>>all ethnic groups, but still a bouquet of flowers with different
>>expressions.
Think universally, act locally, in shorter terms.
>
>A bouquet of flowers are arranged according to the whims of man. They are
>already dead and slowly withering in their vase. It is the wild flowers
>growing free which are adapting, living life to it's fullest. Our present
>system is a like bunch of tended gardens, This is well enough because, (I
>started to write something here and then saw it sounding so much like
Chance
>Gardener, I just couldn't :-), luckily we are not flowers, we can help to
>change the garden we are in or we can get up and go to another for any
>number of reasons. Variety is the spice of life and Global unity would
leave
>us nowhere to go.
Unity doesn't connate uniformity. Clearly, there have been unifying
movements throughout history, eg Federalism of the USA. International law
is slowly developing. Common codes do not affect creativity or innovation
or variety. To say so is not a strong assumption or valid argument. With
unifying events its never been proven that diversity has been affected in
terms of human innovation and betterment.
>I will admit that it is a romantic notion but I do not see it as a workable
>one. What does PROUT mean by "grow organically"? Does PROUT mean that
global unity must spring forth naturally? Then it stands to reason that
PROUT is
>defeating it's own purpose by telling people how it should happen.
>Do you follow my logic ?
Not really. Essentially, unifying events to date have been on the political
level. There has been benefit and disadvantages, but the disadvantages
arise more from the fact that there is no real measures to address provision
of minimum necessities of life. Community has to be local. The local form
of govt must be more concerned with local people and as we move up to higher
forms of govt, they work more on the general level. So there is some
balance. Economically though people are disenfranchised because there is no
economic democracy. There is excess centralisation of wealth and local
economies are drained. Centralised economic control with no local input
stifles culture. That is how the flowers are lost.
>
dd
m124
somehow bring legidimacy by confusion.
The One World Crowd sucks.
Dharmadeva wrote:
> PROUT stands for regional application and universal
> outlook. Global unity must grow organically from the
> local/regional level, taking into account the sentiments
> of the local populace, so that there may be something like the sum total of
> all ethnic groups, but still a bouquet of flowers with different
> expressions.
>
Dieter Dambiec
m124 wrote in message <36A25C8E...@bellsouth.net>...
>Your wordiness is wearisome and boring. It says nothing. It seems created
to
>somehow bring legidimacy by confusion.
>The One World Crowd sucks.
>
Strange, others had no problem in interpretation. maybe its do with
consciousness and its ability
rdr
Dharmadeva wrote in message
<77s507$fid$1...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>...
>rdr wrote in message <77ppu8$sh1$1...@nuhou.aloha.net>...
>>sorry. And though I dislike the new age movement,
>So do you love the status quo?
Love, huh ???. What are you? , a loon ? Love is one of the most ambiguous
terms in existance. It has no place in a political debate. You really are
lost aren't you? In answer to your question. A man can hate a dirty diaper
while still loving its source.
>You know the so called NA movement has many
>aspects.
Yeah, and they all center around the whole "We are gods" concept. Well let
me tell you there dd. I been there, done that, and can honestly say that
IMHO it is the oldest mistake of conciousness. Although very few men explore
much less control their true potential, We are not gods. Never have been,
never will be. We are humans. This *is* our place in the universe. All else
is unknowable infinately debateable philosophical balderdash. You wanna
change the world? Plant a tree. There. Now, what do you want to do next? Do
you get my point?
>There is a lot of good and well developed thought in it. There are loonies
here and there, but
>there are loonies in the status quo to. There are far worse things than
new age movements.
There may be some well developed thought in it, but I would not call it
good. Furthermore I don't have any idea what could possibly be worse than a
seemingly innocuous movement which leads good hearted people into what I
consider the oldest mistake of free thought. Man is not God. This fact is so
obvious that alot of people "can't see the forest cause of all the trees in
their way". Of course, if you want to talk about the nature of God, that is
a different topic.
>Anyway history has also resulted in
>large scale changes not from normal people but those on the edge courageous
>enough to challenge.
I admire this spirit and am thankful for it but I disagree with your
inference that the people associated with these changes are abnormal. I
believe such inferences lead to prejudice and bigotry and that you should be
more careful in your editorials. We all have courage. Some have yet to find
it. :-)
>Unity doesn't connate uniformity. Clearly, there have been unifying
>movements throughout history, eg Federalism of the USA. International law
>is slowly developing. Common codes do not affect creativity or innovation
>or variety.
This is baloney. My whole reason for being on these boards is that I feel it
is precisely the creeping federalism we've seen in America since the Cival
War which has created the mess we are in today. Can't you see how sick
American Culture is these days? I contend that this is the direct result of
what I shall term "creeping federalism". A global village promises more of
the same on a more massive scale. No, thank you.
>To say so is not a strong assumption or valid argument. With
>unifying events its never been proven that diversity has been affected in
>terms of human innovation and betterment.
Yes it has been proven. This is all perspective and opinion. So lets move
on. Here is a simple question. Is the world any better place today after
over fifty years of UN efforts? MO is a resounding NO. I'm not saying whose
fault it is or anything, I am simply saying that the world is a worse place.
Cultural Genocide is still being practiced against the Tibetans and Other
Native Peoples. The Africans are still butchering each other by the
thousands in ancient tribal rituals. The Balken War is back. Korea is still
a DMZ. The Moslems and the Jews and The Christians are still murderously
bickering amongst themselves (even the Hindus are beginning to rampage) And
Britain and France still dis-agree on most issues. I ask again, what good
has the movement toward internationalism done for anyone? Things are indeed
getting worse. These difficulties are the result of deep seated differences
inherant in human nature, not the result of how lines are drawn on a map.
How does "PROUT" plan on taming this beast?
>>Do you follow my logic ?
>
>Not really. Essentially, unifying events to date have been on the
political
>level. There has been benefit and disadvantages, but the disadvantages
>arise more from the fact that there is no real measures to address
provision
>of minimum necessities of life.
World issues such as unifying events are by nature "political". That is the
essence of the word.
Our God Given Inalienable Rights are the only "real measures to address
provision of minimum necessities of life" which we will ever have, or need.
And until someone shows me a document that more clearly states this than The
Declaration of Independance, I will rest upon it.
>Community has to be local. The local form
>of govt must be more concerned with local people and as we move up to
higher
>forms of govt, they work more on the general level. So there is some
>balance.
Yes, a great example of this form of gov't that worked for many years can be
read about in the history of the USA. Have you ever read Our Constitution?
It is a great model for any dreamer of utopia, as well as for practical men
of state.
>economically though people are disenfranchised because there is no
>economic democracy.
Balderdash, although there is always injustice and greed, for the most part,
throughout ALL history and cultures, those who work harder, get to play
harder. That is my experience at least, and I have certainly been around.
>There is excess centralisation of wealth and local
>economies are drained. Centralised economic control with no local input
>stifles culture.
This is a great example of your lack of understanding of the english
language. Hence your words are high sounding, yet quite silly. With "no
local input", what exactly will "central" have control over?
>That is how the flowers are lost.
I bet you would be a fine gardener.
Kind Regards,
rdr
..., divided we fall
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"There is no-one so transparent as the person who thinks he is devilish
deep"
Somerset Maugham
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prevent Hunger in your own backyard - Plant a Y2K Garden.
Brian Berkeley-White
rdr wrote in message <
>This is a great example of your lack of understanding of the english
>language.
I'm not involved in this debate (and will not become so), but I have to
say that I'm not greatly impressed by *your* use of the English
language. Examples abound in your replies to your correspondent.
Brian
(Duty Pedant)
rdr
Brian Berkeley-White wrote in message ...
>I'm not involved in this debate (and will not become so), but I have to
>say that I'm not greatly impressed by *your* use of the English
>language. Examples abound in your replies to your correspondent.
>
>Brian
>(Duty Pedant)
Cheers Brian,
Sorry if you are having trouble reading my posts. I do hope they are
understandable at least. I would imagine my grammar and punctuation to be
horrendous. But then, since I never made it to HS graduation, I wouldn't
know. (Thank Gawd for da spell ckecker :-). I understand correction as a
kindness, you do raise a valid point.
My point with dd is that his high-sounding words confuse the issues and
obscure the message he is trying to share. Do you feel I am doing the same
thing, only differently? If so, where and how ? This is very important to
me.
I write as I think, or as I would speak. I base my arguments on the
dictionary, for that is where I feel everyone has to meet (where else???).
While my *use* of structure is most certainly off, I hope that
*understanding* rings through.
Thanks again for commenting,
rdr
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Act only on the maxim which you can at the same time will that it should
become a universal law"
- Kant 1797
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Change the world - Plant a garden
And I hope you NZedder's are taking lottsa picts of That Cup so'se ya can
have sumtin to 'member her by
<g>
rdr
Dharmadeva wrote in message
<787ahg$joe$1...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>...
>rdr wrote in message <785n4i$id0$1...@nuhou.aloha.net>...
>>IMHO it is the oldest mistake of conciousness.
>You've been a god - good for you.
What I said was that I tried the whole NA self empowerment / enlightenment,
"We are God" concept for quite a few years and I found it dangerous. I
apologize if my wording insinuated that I felt I had played a god before in
my life. The closest I came to that in NA was some wild astral projection
rides (just about the coolest thing I ever done, but still dangerous) I will
admit to generalizing but can you deny that the heart of any NA teaching
*can be* generalized with the statement "man creates his own reality"?
>Although very few men explore
>>much less control their true potential, We are not gods.
>Who said we ever were? You are making this up as you go along.
Of course I am making this up as I go along. However, this theory of mine is
based on things like;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
..."Representatives of some of the nation's largest corporations,
including I.B.M., A.T.&T, and General Motors, met in New Mexico in July
[1986] to discuss how metaphysics, the occult and Hindu mysticism might help
executives compete in the world marketplace." ...
..."One concept commonly transmitted in these sessions
[seminars and workshops on human potential]...is that because man is a deity
equal to God he can do no wrong; thus, there is no sin, no reason for guilt
in life".... [ The New York Times, Spiritual Concepts Drawing a Different
Breed of Adherent. Section Y page 8. Sept. 29, 1986.]
Shirley Maclaine said, "We are at any given moment living the totality of
everything....The vibrational oscillation of nature is quickening....Just
remember that you are God, and act accordingly."
"In Egypt, a few bemused camel drivers and tourist guides looked on as
a lone young man in white shorts and a glittering shawl danced near the
pyramids at Giza. ‘I am God, I am God,' he shouted." [Paul Nussbaum and Rick
Lyman, The San Diego Union, "5,000 greet new age at Mt. Shasta." Aug. 17,
1987, A-2.]
"T.I.C.'s (The Inner Christ) purpose is to assist every individual to know
themselves as a Christ, to clearly and safely channel guidance and prophecy
for themselves from their own Inner Christ and to gain dominion over their
life circumstances through prayer and self-revelation. T.I.C. makes the
intellectual concept that we are God a reality." [From a tract from the
Teaching of the Inner Christ, What is T.I.C.?]
"The goal of eternity is ahead! The adventure of divinity attainment
lies before you! The race for perfection is on! Whosoever will may enter,
and certain victory will crown the efforts of every human being who will run
the race of faith and trust, depending every step of the way on the leading
of the indwelling Adjuster and on the guidance of the good spirit of the
Universal Son, which so freely has been poured out upon all flesh." [The
Urantia Book, 365.4]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As I have said, the whole NA movement seems to be permeated with this
"forget the old ideas of life, the universe, and everything, and lets go on
the supposition that there is no God per se and we are it" kinda philosophy.
A great example of this "forget God" viewpoint is the guy you mentioned
Theodore Rosnak. here are a few of his quotes;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The oldest of the atoms, hydrogen whose primacy among the elements should
have gained it a more poetically resonant name is a cosmic theme;
mysteriously elaborated billions-fold, it has created from Nothing the
Everything that includes us."
"Modern cosmology teaches us that the swelling emptiness that contains us
is, precisely by virtue of its magnitude, the physical matrix that makes
living intelligence possible. "
"Those who once believed we were cradled in the hands of God were not so
very wrong after all -- at least metaphorically speaking."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So this obviously intelligent gentleman is saying ...?That God, The Creator
of All Things is... a hydrogen atom? Well.... uuhhh... sure!. Which serves
to amplify the point I am trying to raise that IMHO, the NA movement is a
*religion* which promotes it's teachings through blind idealism. IMO it is a
wolve in sheeps clothing which must be exposed at every turn. And in your
case, I want it to stay out of US politics. I like the USoA's Constitutional
seperation of church and state. Hence my lampooning of your *political*
articles.
This next quote is from theosophist literature;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"once that a student abandons the old and trodden highway of routine, and
enters upon the solitary path of independent thought--Godward --he is a
Theosophist; an original thinker, a seeker after the eternal truth with "an
inspiration of his own" to solve the universal problems."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This seems to sum up NA belief to me. I tried it, honestly. I don't think it
goes far enough and stops dangerously short of some vital truths. The most
important being that there are no universal problems. There are only human
problems. The only thing universal about problems is that we humans all have
our own unique set. And if we weren't here to contemplate them they wouldn't
exist. No Problem.
>> We are humans. This *is* our place in the universe.
>The universe is a big place and as you say the mind has great potential, so
>you seem to be contradicting yourself under the guise of erudite been there
>done that.
When I say "this is our place" I am talking quite literally of the here and
now. For *this* is the only *time* and *place* we will ever occupy.
Philosophical debate is all well and fine in the classroom. But take it out
in the real world and one finds it usually doesn't work according to theory.
Take my confidence as you will. I have been around the block once or twice.
My new age studies were during the late 70's/early 80's. By the time Urantia
became popular in my area I had already abandoned NA thinking as a
philosophy and saw it for what I still believe it to be, a cleverly
disguised religion.
>
>There are far worse things than
>new age movements.
>>consider the oldest mistake of free thought. Man is not God.
>Your last mantra seems rather irrelevant to what you are trying to say.
But the MinG thing is the entire theme of my message with espousers of new
age belief. I am writing in response to your quasi- political religious
postings which I feel are based on an underlying lie. It is that lie itself
which I am feebly attemping to lampoon.
>God is not confined to any nature.
Balderdash, God is a word. A word is confined by common sense into a
definition. Hence God can be known. It is all perspective.
>Beyond limitation.
... is monism. Which is also *beyond understanding* and well defined in that
sense. I wonder why poeple waste so much time trying to understand... that
which is obviously beyond our understanding?
> If you want to say
>two things about God they are God cannot hate anything or body and God
>cannot create a second God as everything is within God.
Have you heard of the saying "the blind leading the blind"?, do you really
presume that you *know* what God can or cannot do. I contend that God is
bigger than our puny minds can possibly fathom. I think God has quite a
history of putting men in their places when they grow overly bold and
rebellious. IMHO, God seems to make it a point to *not* make sense at times.
Time does tell, eh?
> Nature is only a
>manifestation of the qualification of the Absolute non-attributional into
>the attributional.
You are saying that, (The physical power we call Our World) is only a (clear
and unmistakeable result) of the( thing that restricts a meaning) of the
(Complete, Unrestricted) (non characteristical qualities) into the
(characteristical qualiites) ? Do I have this right ?? Ain't that just a
fancy way of saying no-one can tell what the hell is going on??? Can you try
this again please. In simpler terms. for this poor HS drop-out.
>That philsophical premise has been around for 1000s of
>year - its got nothing to do with new age.
Most of NA thought is based on very old (and failed, I might add) movements.
This is no mystery
>If you want to make sense better to talk about the process of creation,
>maintenance and destruction within the cosmic evolution
Learning is torture and knowledge brings sorrow
Do our frends in the sea worry about tomarrow.
And man's just a beast though we think we are more
but we are fooling ourselves, down deep at the core
For all we create, we also destroy
Emc2 Down Deep. At the core.
I wrote that long ago. Does it make sense?
>Why confine yourself to a 2
>dimensional world of normal - abnormal, there is also above normal and many
>other shades.
The oldest recorded philosophical thought is one of dualism. Shades of grey
may sway a jury but the law is black and white.
>
>Perhaps be more careful in your interpretations and see trees you talk
about
>differently
I will admit trying to figure out what you are saying sometimes is very
difficult. I'll do my best in keeping an open mind.
>>>Federalism of the USA. . Common codes do not affect creativity or
innovation
>>>or variety.
>>This is baloney. My whole reason for being on these boards is that I
feel...
>>....is precisely the creeping federalism we've seen in America
>So politics is the ultimate influencer of culture - that is a wild leap
from
>point A to Z in the chain of reasoning. Politics has little to do with
>culture.
Nice attempt at changing the subject but I ain't falling for it. I still
disagree with your statement that, "Common codes do not affect creativity or
innovation or variety." While I am mostly concerned with matters here in my
homeland and will naturally respond by referring to them, I think a much
better example of why I disagree with your statement can be seen by looking
at Tibet. In China, politics *is* culture. And don't try to tell me
different because I been there, bummin around. It is pounded into their
brains everywhere I looked. Loudspeakers in the streets screaming the party
line. No Thank You.
>Then if it is a worse place, why is the UN still there.
What do you mean *if*? Are you denying that the world is more dangerous
today than before the creation of the UN.
I don't *know* why it is still around. I think it might be because noble
ideas die hard no matter how bad they are <g>. But seriously, I am all for a
"world stage" where we all can complain about all our problems publicaly and
in relative safety. I am all for "getting it on record". But the moment the
UN is given "Military Force" it oversteps the boundry of "Sovereignty" and
becomes a threat to freedom.
>It would not have
>survived its own worseness, just like Hitler and all worse people don't
seem
>to survive by their regimes. Given that they all fall - it means there is
>betterment in it.
I don't know what world you see there dd, but the nazi's seem to be alive
and well in the world I'm looking at. Fascism itself seems to be on the rise
also. Bummer.
I don't recall who it was that said, "The classict Fascist movements have
always begun as extremism of the center" Beware these things. They can get
brutal...
>>Cultural Genocide is still being practiced against the Tibetans and Other
>>Native Peoples. The Africans are still butchering each other by the
>>thousands in ancient tribal rituals. The Balken War is back. Korea is
still
>>a DMZ. The Moslems and the Jews and The Christians are still murderously
>>bickering amongst themselves (even the Hindus are beginning to rampage)
And
>>Britain and France still dis-agree on most issues. I ask again, what good
>>has the movement toward internationalism done for anyone? Things are
indeed
>>getting worse. These difficulties are the result of deep seated
differences
>>inherant in human nature, not the result of how lines are drawn on a map.
>>How does "PROUT" plan on taming this beast?
>
>See later upcoming post.
k
>>Our God Given Inalienable Rights
>and what exactly are these if they are not stated somewhere and stem from a
>moral basis.
Nothing
>>The
>>Declaration of Independance, I will rest upon it.
>>Have you ever read Our Constitution?
>>It is a great model for any dreamer of utopia, as well as for practical
men
>>of state.
>It is too individualistic and that give rise to rampant capitalist
>exploitation. It is not a balance model at all.
How do you justfy this statement on individualism with the following one of
yours from an earlier post?
>>>Federalism of the USA. . Common codes do not affect creativity or
innovation
>>>or variety.
And here we come to the crumb of the bisquit. And this is a prime example of
the need for people with similar beliefs to form nations so they can live
they're lives as they see fit. You see things one way, I see them another.
This is all well and fine. If you don't like where you live change it or
move. But leave my home out of it. I do what I can for everyone I can. But I
will not be held accountable for every "essence of all that exists" on the
block. I am sorry you got problems but, don't we all.
>You seem more drowned in your cynicism, if that
>the effect of being around, why bother.
Because it's here
>If you have been around then you will realise that most economic entities,
>ie called multinational entities have a centralised means of control and
set
>up in host countries operated from overseas parent entities.
Yes, that is the recent trend. While I do have my own ideas about current
economics and "the bubble", I see no reason to even begin to consider giving
up on the good ol USoA. And I feel your posts are trying to say I should. To
that I can and do protest.
With hope,
rdr
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Formula for success: Rise early, work hard, strike oil.
J. Paul Getty
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Change your world / Plant a garden
Dharmadeva
>>You know the so called NA movement has many
>>aspects.
>>Yeah, and they all center around the whole "We are gods" concept. Well let
>me tell you there dd. I been there, done that, and can honestly say that
>IMHO it is the oldest mistake of conciousness.
You've been a god - good for you.
Although very few men explore
>much less control their true potential, We are not gods.
Who said we ever were? You are making this up as you go along.
Never have been,
>never will be. We are humans. This *is* our place in the universe.
The universe is a big place and as you say the mind has great potential, so
you seem to be contradicting yourself under the guise of erudite been there
done that.
There are far worse things than
new age movements.
>
>There may be some well developed thought in it, but I would not call it
>good. Furthermore I don't have any idea what could possibly be worse than a
>seemingly innocuous movement which leads good hearted people into what I
>consider the oldest mistake of free thought. Man is not God.
Your last mantra seems rather irrelevant to what you are trying to say.
This fact is so
>obvious that alot of people "can't see the forest cause of all the trees in
>their way". Of course, if you want to talk about the nature of God, that is
>a different topic.
God is not confined to any nature. Beyond limitation. If you want to say
two things about God they are God cannot hate anything or body and God
cannot create a second God as everything is within God. Nature is only a
manifestation of the qualification of the Absolute non-attributional into
the attributional. That philsophical premise has been around for 1000s of
year - its got nothing to do with new age.
If you want to make sense better to talk about the process of creation,
maintenance and destruction within the cosmic evolution
>
>>Anyway history has also resulted in
>>large scale changes not from normal people but those on the edge
courageous
>>enough to challenge.
>
>I admire this spirit and am thankful for it but I disagree with your
>inference that the people associated with these changes are abnormal.
Who said anything about abnormal? There are various ranges of adjective in
the range of above normal or below normal. Why confine yourself to a 2
dimensional world of normal - abnormal, there is also above normal and many
other shades.
I
>believe such inferences lead to prejudice and bigotry and that you should
be
>more careful in your editorials.
Perhaps be more careful in your interpretations and see trees you talk about
differently
We all have courage. Some have yet to find
>it. :-)
>
>>Unity doesn't connate uniformity. Clearly, there have been unifying
>>movements throughout history, eg Federalism of the USA. International law
>>is slowly developing. Common codes do not affect creativity or innovation
>>or variety.
>
>This is baloney. My whole reason for being on these boards is that I feel
it
>is precisely the creeping federalism we've seen in America since the Cival
>War which has created the mess we are in today. Can't you see how sick
>American Culture is these days? I contend that this is the direct result of
>what I shall term "creeping federalism".
So politics is the ultimate influencer of culture - that is a wild leap from
point A to Z in the chain of reasoning. Politics has little to do with
culture.
A global village promises more of
>the same on a more massive scale. No, thank you.
>
>>To say so is not a strong assumption or valid argument. With
>>unifying events its never been proven that diversity has been affected in
>>terms of human innovation and betterment.
>
>Yes it has been proven. This is all perspective and opinion. So lets move
>on. Here is a simple question. Is the world any better place today after
>over fifty years of UN efforts? MO is a resounding NO. I'm not saying whose
>fault it is or anything, I am simply saying that the world is a worse
place.
Then if it is a worse place, why is the UN still there. It would not have
survived its own worseness, just like Hitler and all worse people don't seem
to survive by their regimes. Given that they all fall - it means there is
betterment in it.
>Cultural Genocide is still being practiced against the Tibetans and Other
>Native Peoples. The Africans are still butchering each other by the
>thousands in ancient tribal rituals. The Balken War is back. Korea is still
>a DMZ. The Moslems and the Jews and The Christians are still murderously
>bickering amongst themselves (even the Hindus are beginning to rampage) And
>Britain and France still dis-agree on most issues. I ask again, what good
>has the movement toward internationalism done for anyone? Things are indeed
>getting worse. These difficulties are the result of deep seated differences
>inherant in human nature, not the result of how lines are drawn on a map.
>How does "PROUT" plan on taming this beast?
See later upcoming post.
>. Essentially, unifying events to date have been on the
>political
>>level. There has been benefit and disadvantages, but the disadvantages
>>arise more from the fact that there is no real measures to address
>provision
>>of minimum necessities of life.
>
>World issues such as unifying events are by nature "political". That is the
>essence of the word.
>Our God Given Inalienable Rights
and what exactly are these if they are not stated somewhere and stem from a
moral basis.
are the only "real measures to address
>provision of minimum necessities of life" which we will ever have, or need.
>And until someone shows me a document that more clearly states this than
The
>Declaration of Independance, I will rest upon it.
>
>>Community has to be local. The local form
>>of govt must be more concerned with local people and as we move up to
>higher
>>forms of govt, they work more on the general level. So there is some
>>balance.
>
>Yes, a great example of this form of gov't that worked for many years can
be
>read about in the history of the USA. Have you ever read Our Constitution?
>It is a great model for any dreamer of utopia, as well as for practical men
>of state.
It is too individualistic and that give rise to rampant capitalist
exploitation. It is not a balance model at all.
>
>>economically though people are disenfranchised because there is no
>>economic democracy.
>
>Balderdash, although there is always injustice and greed, for the most
part,
>throughout ALL history and cultures, those who work harder, get to play
>harder. That is my experience at least, and I have certainly been around.
Sure doesn't sound like it. You seem more drowned in your cynicism, if that
the effect of being around, why bother.
>
>>There is excess centralisation of wealth and local
>>economies are drained. Centralised economic control with no local input
>>stifles culture.
>
>This is a great example of your lack of understanding of the english
>language. Hence your words are high sounding, yet quite silly. With "no
>local input", what exactly will "central" have control over?
If you have been around then you will realise that most economic entities,
Dharmadeva
>
>See later upcoming post.
Economically I posit the following argument and compare with the work of
Amartya Sen
DISTRIBUTIONS OF WEALTH AND PEOPLE'S ECONOMY
The question of wealth distribution requires a fundamental look at what
forms a wholistic economy. Sarkar states that a developed economy should
consist of four parts: people's economy, psycho-economy, commercial economy
and general economy. It is the people's economy that offers economic
liberation and security for all. Its scope, implementation and invigoration
of economic and human rights needs to be brought to the forefront as
conventional economists are unable to come to grips with the failures in
economies around the world
Guaranteed minimum necessities
People's economy deals with the essential needs of the people in general and
with aspects such as production, distribution and marketing. In particular,
it is directly concerned with the guaranteed provision of minimum
requirements like food, clothes, housing, medical care, education,
transportation, energy supply and supply of irrigational waters. The
objective is continuous improvement and ready availability of these
essentials.
In order for minimum requirements to be assured there must be guaranteed
purchasing power. The time has come to recognise that the right to
guaranteed purchasing power is a universal and fundamental human right and
as such requires constitutional protection, ie there must be constitutional
recognition of the benefits of economic prosperity for all people.
Grossly unjust wealth distributions
Current laws emphasize property rights and give compensation for
expropriation and misappropriation of property whether by governments or
other individuals. However, in doing so there is disregard as to whether
the distribution of such property rights can be or is justified,
particularly in the case of over-accumulation. A highly skewed
distributions of wealth ranging from some individuals amassing billions in
assets while others struggle on a few cents a day represents an inefficient
production, distribution and marketing system that does not serve the needs
of a people's economy. Despite capitalism being a relatively somewhat
better system than communism in terms of the production of goods and the
incentive to innovate, the large scale wealth inequalities evident in
capitalism does, of itself, mean that there are many pernicious loopholes in
such a free market system.
In terms of a comparison with investment theory, it is certainly arguable
that if a particular investor can derive an abnormal return consistently
distinct from what may be considered as being within a range of an average
or normal return in the market, then the investor is probably privy to
certain information that enables them to exploit arbitrage or speculative
opportunities. Indeed the situation may be worse and involve, for example,
favouritism, collusion, cronyism, bribery or other biased distribution
mechanisms. Abnormal opportunities such as these represent inefficiency and
unfairness in the economy if such loopholes are readily available and
allowed to persist. A truly efficient economy would continuously
marginalise and virtually eliminate the opportunity to make such abnormal
gains or profits. This also includes the ability to amass unprecedented or
abnormal levels of wealth.
Minimizing the gap - a sign of an efficient and rational economy
An efficient economy would, instead, minimize the gap between the minimum
requirements needed generally by all people and the maximum amenities
required by particular persons or groups so that they are capable of
rendering more service and useful outputs for the benefit of society. For
instance, ordinary people may be provided with motorcycles instead of
bicycles. Here, there is some difference between a motorcycle and a car,
but the gap that existed between a car and a bicycle has been partially
reduced. In an economy that is efficient in what it distributes (ie
marginalises and seeks to eliminate the ability to make abnormal gains in
wealth accumulation), or in another sense is a rational distributor, the
economic gap between ordinary people and meritorious people is constantly
reduced as much as possible, but the gap will never vanish altogether. That
is, the difference between the minimum requirements of all and the maximum
or special amenities of the meritorious is never entirely eliminated.
Even though the gap exists, there must nevertheless be efforts to
continuously reduce the gap. An important reason for that is because if the
gap increases disproportionally there is every likelihood of economic
loopholes again arising to abnormally skew the distribution of wealth to
irrational proportions. This affects the economic welfare of all members of
society and the common people, such that the value of their labour and
participation in the economy is not properly recognised, thereby giving
scope for a large segment of society to become deprived - and exploitation
will again re-emerge in society in the guise of special amenities.
Accordingly, the provision of special or maximum amenities should not go
against the common interest. This is the relationship between minimum
requirements and maximum amenities.
It also, however, means the ordinary public will not and should not be
deprived of maximum amenities - efforts must be there to give them as much
of the maximum amenities as possible and available to society at the time,
but without destroying the incentive of the more meritorious to produce
better outputs and contributions for society in all spheres of endeavour. A
close analysis reveals that such a system of production is based on
consumption for the benefit of all members of society, rather than profit
being the underlying motive in the field of production. Naturally, with the
marginalisation of profits and the elimination of the ability to make excess
or abnormal profits, eg with the continual lessening of opportunities to
make speculative gains, the economy is then in a better position to truly
serve consumption needs rather than profiteering objectives.
Rational distribution of rational profits
Profits, must of course be made, but these have to be rational or normal
profits. What should be eliminated in an economy that rationally
distributes resources and makes maximum utilization of resources is the
ability to make abnormal or irrational profits. There is no scope for
speculative gains in a people's economy.
For example, in the market place the market price may be the cost of
production plus a rational profit (Price = C + Y) where a rational profit is
about 15%. To further the increased purchasing capacity of workers this
amount or part of it will be rationally distributed amongst them and act as
an incentive. As they get more incentive, workers will produce more goods
and services. Incentives should encourage greater work and better quality
work, and so they should be directly linked to production. This approach in
a people's economy increases purchasing capacity and, therefore, the per
capita income and standard of living of workers increases. In such a system
there is no economic exploitation involving the unrestricted plunder of
physical and psychic labour of a particular community (or its natural
resources in the local area). The surplus value created by labour and
taking the form of profits is rationally distributed to labourers and/or
shareholders in a co-operative manner and through co-operative business
enterprises.
The object of production is then based on the consumption motive. Profits
having been marginalised or minimised to normal or rational profits in an
economy that is truly efficient and which rationally distributes resources,
means also that speculative or profiteering opportunities or motives decline
and, as there is little or no scope for them, the focus of production shifts
to satisfying the minimum necessities and maximum amenities of the ordinary
and also the meritorious people. It is the rational profits (including
equitable remuneration in the form of salary or wages) derived that are used
to guarantee and increase the purchasing capacity of labourers and/or
shareholders (where labour includes all manner of utilization of physical,
psychic or spiritual capability). Only a system that revolves around the
consumption motive can increase the standard of living of all people. In
such a system the value of wealth is measured in terms of its capacity to
purchase commodities. It is the purchasing capacity of one's wealth that is
the real value of that wealth and that purchasing capacity is, of course,
the real wealth. Accordingly, it is improper to define wealth as meaning
only riches - that amounts to hoarding of wealth.
Hoarding of wealth leads to economic crisis
Given that wealth must be measured in terms of purchasing capacity, if there
is hoarding of wealth then capital becomes concentrated in the hands of a
few individuals (including corporations) or the State and its purchasing
capacity is undermined. This concentration in the value of wealth (or what
could be purchasing capacity and therefore what could be money rolling
through the economy) is a fundamental cause of economic depressions. The
second and related cause is when money in the possession of a few
individuals, corporations or State capitalists stops rolling. The Asian
crisis is symptomatic of this second cause.
When large amounts of money were withdrawn from economies such as Indonesia
and Thailand, that money could no longer roll through those Asian economies.
Instead the money found its way into USA stock markets for the acquisition
of corporate stocks, creating an unusual and unprecedented demand for shares
traded through US stock exchanges (the prices of which are not truly
reflective of the fundamental businesses or investments of those
corporations). This usage of money essentially simply pushed up the value
of stocks/shares, while remaining entirely inert or unutilised for real
productive purposes. It has now caused inflation in the value of shares
traded on US stock markets, while at the same time the withdrawal of wealth
from Asia has resulted, or rather added to, the inability of those Asian
economies to produce their minimum necessities and to provide for any
special or maximum amenities, first to the more meritorious and secondly to
the common people. At no time has the people's economy been considered.
For all intents and purposes innovation in Asia has been stifled, the
original wealth that rolled in and was subsequently withdrawn was not used
to increase the real purchasing capacity of the people because it was not
first properly applied in building up the minimum necessities of all people,
but rather focused more on providing special amenities for a limited segment
of society or class of persons. In a nutshell, there was no rational
distribution. The capitalist reasoning in withdrawing money from Asia was
that they thought that if the money was allowed to roll freely in Asia then
their profits will decrease (even though it would bring relief to the common
masses). Consequently, they withdrew their money without any control on
them by the local economy and local people.
The psychology of the capitalists is to make profit from the rolling of
money, and as in Asia when they discover that the investment of money does
not bring profit up to their expectations, then they stop rolling the money
in that particular economy. It brings economies to it knees. The money is
instead kept immobile or inert or channeled into unproductive purposes by,
for example, the acquisition of US related stocks. While this may give a
pretence of riches it is really a type of concentration of wealth away from
where it could be better productively applied in the medium to long term so
as to give greater opportunities for the all-round welfare of a greater
number of people. Such pretence of riches also does nothing to increase the
purchasing capacity of that wealth. In PROUTist terms the wealth is said to
have lost its value because it is not assisting in increasing the purchasing
capacity of most people. .
Keep money rolling
Also, in PROUTist terms the value of money depends on the extent of its
circulation. The more frequently money changes hands, the greater its
economic value. The greater the value of money, the greater the prosperity
in individual and collective life, and the greater the opportunities for
all-round welfare. The people's economy then flourishes.
While money may well change hands through the US stock markets, that does
not amount to true circulation of money in the productive parts of the
economy which are concerned with the provision of minimum necessities for
all and special or maximum amenities to first, the meritorious and secondly,
to the common people. This contradiction in capitalism and its false claim
to being an efficient allocator of wealth and distributor of resources
arises due to the self-centered profit motivated psychology and the control
and accumulation of wealth for the benefit of a few rather than for the
welfare of all.
However, had the consumption motive been the motivating force for production
there would have been a continual circulation of money through the
productive parts of the economy centered around the needs of the people.
There would easily be a proper and equitable allocation of wealth, money
would circulate readily and the standard of living of all would be capable
of increasing.
The consumption motive
The advantage of the consumption motive is that it is essentially concerned
with establishing adequate purchasing capacity and then increasing it.
Furthermore, this can only be beneficial to sustaining business enterprises.
For example, while first class passengers already get special facilities and
ordinary passengers do not, if the purchasing capacity of ordinary
passengers is increased in greater proportion to that of first class
passengers, then the ability of ordinary passengers to consume more (and to
obtain at least some of the extra facilities available to first class
passengers) has increased. That would result in an increase in production
for the extra provision of some of the facilities previously available only
to first class passengers and which are now made available to a greater
population base of ordinary passengers through increased purchasing
capacity. The production being for the consumption by ordinary passengers.
Therefore, that consumption motive has resulted in an increased standard of
living for ordinary passengers. In a less advanced economy, it would of
course be the minimum requirements of the common people that would be
immediately increased through extra purchasing capacity. This again would
result in increased production for consumption resulting in increased
standards of living. It is worthwhile mentioning that what constitutes both
the minimum requirements and the maximum amenities/facilities is ever
increasing.
Citizen power
To ensure that there is citizen power in enforcement of a guarantee of
minimum necessities to all persons, PROUT supports a constitutional right
for citizens of a country to sue a government if their minimum requirements
are not met. This is a check to ensure that proper policies are developed
by governments to warrant that there must be rational distribution of
resources and a system of minimum necessities for all and increasing maximum
amenities as required. While the government should not be an economic
controller per se through centralized economic power, it does have an
obligation to ensure that there is no inequity in society and so can be
taken to be the last avenue of recourse when there is a concern about any
person's minimum necessities being denied. It can always pass the necessary
laws or take administrative action to ensure that the required equity is
achieved across the board for all people.
Also, as people's economy deals with minimum requirements and people's
subsistence problems, it must take precedence over other parts of the
economy. For example, if people have no food and are starving, it may be
necessary to establish short term uneconomic industries to supply food. In
normal conditions such industries would violate the logic of general
economic principles and the rules of supply and demand. But, in order to
get an efficient and rational system of supply and demand working, the means
for that must first be put in place. To this end people's economy is also
concerned with the development of small-scale industries, both private and
cooperative. Private industries must, however, be limited in size and scope
to prevent monopoly production and exploitation, and be required to function
as cooperatives once they grow too large.
Cooperatives and social welfare
Cooperative industries are the best means of organising people in an
independent manner so that they take collective responsibility for their
livelihood. They are also the main means of ensuring rational distribution
of profits to workers and/or shareholders in the local economy. It is the
co-operative system that is capable of ensuring the social welfare of
citizens in the local economy.
This is in contrast to the notion of the welfare state supported by
capitalist and mixed economies. Does not the welfare state represent
loopholes in the capitalist system, in that because the existing system of
production, distribution and marketing cannot provide adequate purchasing
capacity to all citizens at all times, the welfare state must step in to
solve the inefficiencies of the capitalist system. This is done primarily
through transfer payments to welfare recipients. Is it not a contradiction
in terms of efficiency? The only 'efficiency' that exists in capitalism
today is the scope it gives to hoarding of wealth for a few. The triggering
of economic crises around the world reveals that capitalism is totally
inefficient in all other respects. So much so that governments in countries
such as Japan and areas such as Hong Kong have forced themselves into
intervening in their stock markets with the expectation that they will be
propped up through such intervention.
While, of course, special facilities in the form of welfare need to be made
available in special cases such as birth deformities or being born
intellectually handicapped or similar situations in which a person has no
means of earning an income, in other cases such as unemployment benefits the
provision of relief through the welfare state merely indicates the
inadequacies of the capitalist system and its obsession with profit making.
Unemployment being a figment of an irrational structuring of the economy and
its inefficiency in being able to distribute resources and wealth rationally
so as to ensure that no one is denied adequate purchasing capacity.
Deficiency in Keynesian thinking
It is worth mentioning here Keynes' theory on the model of Circular Flow of
Expenditure and Income. In brief, flow of expenditure on goods and services
comes from consumers, investors and governments, which goes to firms which
produce outputs. The income from firms then flows to consumers (labour),
after some is paid to the government as taxes and part of the income may
then be replaced or income may be given to persons by transfer payments (eg
social security payments to individuals).
There are some fundamental discrepancies in this model from a PROUTist
perspective. Firstly, income taxes on wages and salary essentially reduce a
person's purchasing capacity. PROUT does not accept income taxes on
individual labour. However, in order to support wealth ceilings and as a
transitional measure income taxes may be used as a proxy for wealth taxes
and therefore in support of a wealth ceiling so as to limit and help prevent
the excess accumulation of wealth.
Traditionally in the Keynesian model the bulk of taxation is derived from
income taxes. Although this has changed over the decades towards indirect
taxes such as sales taxes and consumption taxes, these by no means solve
wealth disparities if no wealth ceiling or limits on the accumulation of
wealth are in place. Instead, PROUT support taxes at the point of
production, which means that taxes must be imposed before income reaches
individual workers as a result of that production. It is arguable that such
a system imposes on firms an obligation to ensure that they prove themselves
to be efficient (and not wasteful), because as part of their productive
activity, they must contribute also to the collective welfare (eg for
education facilities) through making allowance for taxes when they produce.
This is so even if the effect of those production taxes do flow through to
prices to the end consumer (who in any case will have adequate purchasing
capacity). The effect of production taxes is also likely to be minimal to
any single consumer, eg a resource extraction tax relative to the scale of
production is likely to have minimal effect on any single consumer.
Further, the Keynesian model assumes the existence of a welfare state and
expenditure through transfers in the form of welfare payments. PROUT, in
general, does not support welfare state mentality. Rather, PROUT supports
full employment, and by this is meant all forms of social contribution
involving physical, psychic or spiritual capabilities. There is also no
reason to exclude the bringing up of children, care of the elderly, etc.
All these can be done through co-operative assistance and enterprises, and
through rational distribution of profits to workers and/or shareholders (be
it via wages, salary, bonus payments, dividends or contributions to
superannuation funds, annuities, pensions or insurance co-ops for members),
this will largely take care of the need for government transfers for
contingencies such as are now covered by social security payments.
Furthermore, money applied for these purposes would not fall directly into
government hands thereby avoiding the concentration of economic power via
centralised government management or control. Concentration of economic
power in government hands has recently been demonstrated by the governments
of Hong Kong and Japan investing large sums of money, either directly or
indirectly through controlled entities, in the stock markets of those
countries so as to artificially prop up those market indices. Such money
would have been better utilised toward programs that increased real
production in the country and so as to increase the minimum necessities and
special amenities of the people as appropriate.
This also demonstrates how far removed the ordinary person has become in
having a local say in their local economy.
Welfare economics requires people's economic power
Nobel prize winner, Amartya Sen has emphasized that what creates welfare is
not goods as such, but the activity for which they are acquired. Sarkar
goes further and asserts that excess accumulation of wealth reduces those
activities and therefore the ability to enhance purchasing capacity across
the economy. According to Sen, income is significant because of the
opportunities it creates. But the actual opportunities - or capabilities,
as Sen calls them - also depend on a number of other factors, such as
health; these factors should also be considered when measuring welfare.
Again, Sarkar goes further and provides a blueprint and economic model and
intuitive principles that directly tackle the issue - even defying
conservative economic thinking. In relation to health, Sarkar states that
medical care and therefore health is a minimum or basic necessity which must
be available to all people through adequate purchasing power. Without the
guarantee of minimum necessities the capability of income or rather the
value of wealth is not realised.
Sen has pointed out that all well-founded ethical principles presuppose
equality among individuals in some respect. Sarkar, in this regard has
formulated what in Neo-humanistic terms is called the Principle of Social
Equality and contrasts that to the Principle of Selfish Pleasure. The
former is beneficial individually and collectively, while the latter is not
of real benefit to the collective interest and indeed leads to degradation
of individual consciousness.
Sen recognises that the ability to exploit or claim equal opportunity varies
across individuals, and concludes that the distribution problem can never be
fully solved; equality in some dimensions necessarily implies inequality in
others. This raises the tricky issue of, in which dimensions equality is to
be advocated and in which dimensions inequality is to be accepted. Sarkar,
with profound foresight, gives a solution to this issue by advocating that
the guarantee of minimum necessities to all represents the baseline for
economic equality and the Principle of Social Equality must not deny anyone
access to social opportunities. In addition, Sarkar solves the inequality
question through the principle of making available special amenities to
meritorious persons making contributions to society, while also reducing the
gap between minimum necessities and maximum or special amenities, but never
closing the gap completely. In this way society is capable of pursuing a
continual betterment and increase of available minimum necessities and
additional or special amenities which in one way or another benefits all
people. Sarkar's position being that it is people's economy that is the
real welfare economics.
People's economy - the way forward
The conclusion that must be reached is that for there to be real economic
welfare there must be proper economic organisation in society. Just as
there is political organisation in society through representative
structures, there must also be economic organisation having as its motive
the economic wellbeing of all people and indeed all living things as well as
the inanimate environment. Today economic power is owned by a handful of
capitalists in the liberal economies or party leaders in State socialist
countries. Sarkar's message is that this supremacy must be terminated.
Only then will there be economic liberation and economic democracy will be
established so that the economic welfare of all people can be enhanced step
by step.
The basis of people's economy as propounded by Sarkar, without attachment to
conservative economic thinking, and fully in accord with the human heart and
intuition is the stepping stone and means to that economic welfare.
Brian Berkeley-White
rdr wrote in message <
>Sorry if you are having trouble reading my posts. I do hope they are
>understandable at least.
Yes.
I would imagine my grammar and punctuation to be
>horrendous.
Not horrendous, but offside enough to be commented on when you've
criticised someone else's English.
But then, since I never made it to HS graduation, I wouldn't
>know. (Thank Gawd for da spell ckecker :-). I understand correction as
a
>kindness, you do raise a valid point.
It isn't always a kindness. Sometimes it's about intolerance (e.g. your
intolerance of your correspondent's use of language, and my subsequent
intolerance of yours). However, the tone of your reply to me makes me
want to convert my intolerance (in this case) to kindness :-)
>My point with dd is that his high-sounding words confuse the issues and
>obscure the message he is trying to share. Do you feel I am doing the
same
>thing, only differently?
No, not at all.
If so, where and how ? This is very important to
>me.
If it *is* important to you, please e-mail me (copying the item I
commented on), and I'll be happy to explain what I was referring to.
(To be honest, I've forgotten.)
>I write as I think, or as I would speak.
That I like, for what it's worth.
>I base my arguments on the
>dictionary, for that is where I feel everyone has to meet (where
else???).
I'm not sure that you can base arguments on a dictionary. What,
exactly, do you mean here?
>While my *use* of structure is most certainly off, I hope that
>*understanding* rings through.
As I recall, it wasn't so much your structure as your *basic* spelling
(as opposed to typos or errors in the spelling of more complicated
words. Really it's not about you personally, rather that (and I *am*
pedantic, I know) I notice so many basic punctuation and spelling
wobblies on the internet that I despair for current educational
standards, and so couldn't resist commenting on your comment on someone
else's English.
>
>Thanks again for commenting,
I wish I hadn't now :-) Why? Because I've now laid myself open to
comment from all directions just as soon as anyone picks up a typo (or
spelling mistake) of my own.
Take care,
Brian
>
Dharmadeva
>What I said was that I tried the whole NA self empowerment / enlightenment,
Wholistic social enhancement or one could call it social revolution morality
is the base, wholistic outlook (spirituality) is the means, and realisation
of self (innner awakening, self-actualisation, all round human being, etc)
is the goal. Morality, is the underpinnings of our achieving what is the
highest in human nature -- both individually and collectively. Any deviation
from an ethicla/moral foundation automatically jeopardises both the means
and the ends.
Morality in its true ethical sense rather than religous dogma is preliminary
to both
the means and the ends. Morality is not a methodology for progress; rather
it is the well-spring of all methodologies for progress.
Morality is assessed in terms of that which leads to evolution and
subtlification of the mind rather than to its crudification. Subtley of
human outlook arises from sentiments of a spiritual nature not a
materialistic nature.
The closest I came to that in NA was some wild astral projection
>rides (just about the coolest thing I ever done, but still dangerous)
These days any occult symptom or crazy head pulse is seen as enlightenment.
What is the goal that is trying to be achieved? Guinine spiritual aspirants
do not
practise in order to acquire occult powers. The goal of spiritual practice
is to realise the Supreme Entity. To search for any other thing through
prayer, meditation or other spiritual practices is detrimental.
Occult powers are just like the dust on the roadside. The
attraction for Infinite Seity is the most valuable object - all else is
only the dust of the earth.
Spiritual aspirants do not need to run after these inconsequential occult
powers.
Your below quotes also simply represents the urge for psychic or occult
powers for material satisfaction and as that is the object of ideation, the
means will simply crudify the mind. It is not a wholistic or spiritual
approach.
..."Representatives of some of the nation's largest corporations,
>including I.B.M., A.T.&T, and General Motors, met in New Mexico in July
>[1986] to discuss how metaphysics, the occult and Hindu mysticism might
help
>executives compete in the world marketplace." ...
> ..."One concept commonly transmitted in these sessions
>[seminars and workshops on human potential]...is that because man is a
deity
>equal to God he can do no wrong; thus, there is no sin, no reason for guilt
>in life".... [ The New York Times, Spiritual Concepts Drawing a Different
>Breed of Adherent. Section Y page 8. Sept. 29, 1986.]
>
>Shirley Maclaine said, "We are at any given moment living the totality of
>everything....The vibrational oscillation of nature is quickening....Just
>remember that you are God, and act accordingly."
Of course, all the above quotes are rather naive. It can involve lack of
ethical outlook and a type of negation.
The typical result of those who espouse the philosophy of "focus on the
moment", or my I is everything including God, is that they become quite sad
and obsessed, because this perceived/false "truth" eludes them. This is the
typical approach of the negation school of techniques. It is where
teachings of the like of
Krsnamurti fall short. Conclusion: negation can be dangerous.
What are you to do after that? To where are your mental propensities to be
directed?
>As I have said, the whole NA movement seems to be permeated with this
>"forget the old ideas of life, the universe, and everything, and lets go on
>the supposition that there is no God per se and we are it" kinda
philosophy.
There is confusion on this front, indeed. However, what is even worse than
NA is Christian dualism and the heaven and hell syndrome, where God is seen
apart from the human consciousness. In dualism, spiritual understanding can
never be accomplished because there is always separation between the unit I
feeling of a human mind and the Cosmic Consciousness. In genuine spiritual
practice there is no separation. The NA movement is often pleasure seeking
through rituals and the like and so also falls shorts, also creating a
dualistic sentiment.
'The main characteristic of PROUT-based socioeconomic movements
is that they aim to guarantee the comprehensive, multifarious
liberation of humanity.' P R Sarkar
People's News Agency
is a free news, views, analysis and literature
service for the progressive minded.
Send email to: majo...@igc.org subscribe pna-news
PROUT - PROgressive Utilisation Theory http://www.prout.org
Dharmadeva
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>"The oldest of the atoms, hydrogen whose primacy among the elements should
>have gained it a more poetically resonant name is a cosmic theme;
>mysteriously elaborated billions-fold, it has created from Nothing the
>Everything that includes us."
>
>"Modern cosmology teaches us that the swelling emptiness that contains us
>is, precisely by virtue of its magnitude, the physical matrix that makes
>living intelligence possible. "
>
>"Those who once believed we were cradled in the hands of God were not so
>very wrong after all -- at least metaphorically speaking."
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>So this obviously intelligent gentleman is saying ...?That God, The Creator
>of All Things is... a hydrogen atom?
No it doesn't say that. It says everything is cradled in God. Hydrogen was
an original element, the subtlest of gaseous/aerial matter in the Cosmos
'mysteriously elaborated' by the procoss of God's creation to give rise via
cosmic evolution to this more complex universe (which is an expression of
the Cosmic Consciousness).
Which serves
>to amplify the point I am trying to raise that IMHO, the NA movement is a
>*religion* which promotes it's teachings through blind idealism.
But you have just said that it doesn't accept some form of Supernatural
entity because a certain writer (above) reduces the world to matter (ie
hydrogen), and now you say NA is a religion?
>I like the USoA's
Constitutional
>seperation of church and state.
This is rather irrelevant. Religion (socially) and spirituality are
different things in that religion is dogmatic while spirituality is
wholistic.
>This seems to sum up NA belief to me. I tried it, honestly. I don't think
it
>goes far enough and stops dangerously short of some vital truths.
Like what? Dumb Christian ideas about heaven and hell? Lots of other
stupid dogmas like demons, evil spirits etc which a lot of old age religions
believe in. Your postings are so vague about what you are trying to say.
>The most
>important being that there are no universal problems. There are only human
>problems. The only thing universal about problems is that we humans all
have
>our own unique set. And if we weren't here to contemplate them they
wouldn't
>exist. No Problem.
That sounds like the biggest NA nonsense around. Humans have similar
problems because they have similar structure physically and mentally. The
body, brain and mind of most humans are similar in structure, so they can
develop similar problems like loss of memory, blindness, etc
Economic problems, problems of wars, refugees, crime, etc etc are all common
problems. That is so obvious.
>When I say "this is our place" I am talking quite literally of the here and
>now.
Basic scientific observation will tell you that everything moves and the
present is a short segment in time. So where is the here an and now.
Actually this here and now analysis is very common to new age movements -
which you claim you don't agree with?
For *this* is the only *time* and *place* we will ever occupy.
>Philosophical debate is all well and fine in the classroom. But take it out
>in the real world and one finds it usually doesn't work according to
theory.
You're own theory is easy to disprove.
>>God is not confined to any nature.
>
>Balderdash, God is a word. A word is confined by common sense into a
>definition. Hence God can be known. It is all perspective.
Basic English classess will tell us all words are descriptive. So of course
God is a word. Like all other words - what's new. Infinity is a word, so
it can be known? So how are you going to know God through words (again very
new agey).
>> If you want to say
>>two things about God they are God cannot hate anything or body and God
>>cannot create a second God as everything is within God.
>
>Have you heard of the saying "the blind leading the blind"?, do you really
>presume that you *know* what God can or cannot do. I contend that God is
>bigger than our puny minds can possibly fathom.
And that is why logically no second limited god can be created, because if
it were so both would be limited.
>You are saying that, (The physical power we call Our World) is only a
(clear
>and unmistakeable result) of the( thing that restricts a meaning) of the
>(Complete, Unrestricted) (non characteristical qualities) into the
>(characteristical qualiites) ?
straightforward
Ain't that just a
>fancy way of saying no-one can tell what the hell is going on???
we know lots of things going on, otherwise we wouldn't have science. we
don't know everything, but the history of human society is one of expansion,
and so it goes on.
>Learning is torture and knowledge brings sorrow
>Do our frends in the sea worry about tomarrow.
>And man's just a beast though we think we are more
>but we are fooling ourselves,
That's rubbish. If you study anything about evolution and the difference
between animals and man, you will see that we have evolved to the point of
being able to reflect, apply non-instinctual decision, not be bounded by
instinct, consider our actions, etc. There are many indicators of
difference.
>The oldest recorded philosophical thought is one of dualism. Shades of grey
>may sway a jury but the law is black and white.
Again not so. Any lawyer knows and any judge knows that its the grey areas
that concern us. so that is why we have juries, etc to discern where the
evidence will lead. Also no legal standard be it burden of proof or beyond
reasonable doubt is based on a black and white analysis. Again fairly basic
legal theory/practice.
In China, politics *is* culture. And don't try to tell me
>different because I been there, bummin around. It is pounded into their
>brains everywhere I looked.
No different to the USA where its done by capitalist machinery rather than
state machinery.
But the moment the
>UN is given "Military Force" it oversteps the boundry of "Sovereignty" and
>becomes a threat to freedom.
What's so important about sovereignty? Its an arificial creation of
politics of the nation state. And often simply arising by British
colonialists drawing lines on maps - what's so sacred about that.
>>USA Constitution. It is too individualistic and that give rise to rampant
capitalist
>>exploitation. It is not a balance model at all.
>
>How do you justfy this statement on individualism with the following one of
>yours from an earlier post?
>
>>>>Federalism of the USA. . Common codes do not affect creativity or
>innovation
>>>>or variety.
Without individual good there cannot be collective good and without
collective good there cannot be individual good. The USA constitution is
out of balance.
>And here we come to the crumb of the bisquit. And this is a prime example
of
>the need for people with similar beliefs to form nations so they can live
>they're lives as they see fit.
Sorry, but in most cases people with similar beliefs did not form nations.
Nations were mostly formed by colonialists carving up territory and in many
instance alienating it from the people who were there with common beliefs.