|
Edited on Wed Jun-02-10 07:22 AM by RandomThoughts
The point is to stop domination, but you are within the scope of the problem, the problem with transitioning intent to effect is not dominating or not stealing free will, hence why it has to be done without domination.
But effect requires free will action of other people, so linking intent to effect requires people acting with one intent, so that the effect is not domination but free will choice of many people.
So the better intents, or better angels of people must be brought to the top of the people so that they have the same intents, and can have the effect.
However multipliers like media and consolidation put a pressure on free will and thought, keeping much intents from reaching effect in many people also, so besides intent, their must be works also, and that requires hope and no apathy or despair.
So it seems for intent to become effect, first there must be many of good intent, then a state of existence in those people to be able to move their intents into effect.
The question I am currently working on is if a cumulative intent of many people should be made stronger then a leveraged intent of a few people, should the effects outside of people, money for example, be penalized by its lack of equal value in ability to determining effects. And if that effect, as a counter effect, be some limiting of resources of money. Because money does not have free will, it is possible such an effect would not be against free will, and if enough people of intent thought a certain way, then they would have the reason for the effect from their intents.
So I am thinking that eliminating the multiplier of effects of things like money may not have any free will impact, since money is not a person, and why also the corporate person is so dangerous if people accept it, because it is an attempt to pass free will protection to material objects within the minds of people that worship that stuff.
Or something like that, still thinking on it.
However, there is a problem with any effect outside the system of the legitimacy of government by representation also, so government would have to be shown to not have authority if it is an effect of leveraged money. Since if it had authority that would be an issue. So looking at non sanctioned forms of government like shares of stocks and corporations, and again why corporate person hood is so wrong. Since it is an attempt to get an ideology as a unit above its value the ability to use its far lower form of power at the same level of individuals. Although that only occurs if people believe that concept.
So in summary, people have free will and dignity, and only if they put value in money do they transfer their ability to decide the direction of society to those items, not by its power, but by them giving it power by agreeing with it being valid. So if the intents of many people are better, and they have the effects of good works, then they should be able to have an effect regardless of leverage items, but do those leverage items have to be removed by effects of people, or can they be removed by other means based on not being valid. Hence why system collapse may be necessary to remove any possibility of authority claim from a system before intent to actions can be based on a equal value for all people.
Basically it is the concept of removal of things blocking good intents from being effect, by removing multipliers, by removing peoples belief in those multipliers being valid, or by even removing the structures those multipliers used for control a control claimed by getting people to think they have control.
I think that is why collapse is part of fixing things in some thoughts on systems.
Or something like that.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
