Money
Author: Injun
Posted: Wed Jun 20 2001 09:07 pm
This is a line from a very popular "control politics" document.
"Hunger creates the right of capital to rule the worker more surely than it was given to the aristocracy by the legal authority of kings."
Ron talked a lot about scarcity. I'm not going to spell out what I'm gettting at.
The answer, as I've come to understand it lies in the ability to create illusions. I know, I'm talking jibberish. It's real to me though.
Author: Ed Rhett
Posted: Wed Jun 20 2001 10:32 pm
My first economics professor told the class that economics was not an exact science. (gross understatement)
Years later, I figured out the reason why economics is not an exact science. Because it is a game.
I don't think you would make a very good Republican, Injun. And you could be declared suppressive to saying the above stuff about scarcity and illusions inside the Church of Scientology.
But I'm just talking jiberish.
Author: Injun Joe
Posted: Thur Jun 21 2001 07:26 am
In colleges economics are learned for the purpose of making money. So it's not a pure study.
If you create scarcity, people will fight over the little that remains. A prosperous economy would be a free flowing economy. "Classes" would shift all over the place making for a better game.
Though economics is a game to the common man who is pushed this way and that, it is a predictable science to those who fight not battles of conquest of territory, but wage their wars of conquest on the economic plain. The common man, whether he knows it or not is the effect, if only by a wounded economy, which he assumes to be the product of free trade and freedom. But he accepts it, because he has a chance to ascend in this "kill or be killed economy" to the position of "one who has the rights granted by money", including "the rights of money to buy" or the right granted
in a scarce ecnomy of "the right of money to compel another to his service". But he must not think of this, less his convictions be shaken, and he live with some respnsibility for the whole scene rather than some piece of mathematical "progress" called "success".
Capitalism, communism, republican, etc are all choices offered to us in the multiple choice freedom now called democracy. Packaged convictions. The Logics are OT data. With them you can evaluate data in the mest universe.
Where there is not evaluation, there will often be conviction. Those with rock solid convictions would, if it were up to me, gather in the land of the truely annoying. Captalists are no exception. The strong views of capitalism are based on the ignorance of real economics and upon an arbitrary assigment of certain values. To a capitalist what is the value of an aesthetic, of an illusion or of unrecognized potential in his brother. He would destroy the oceans or any part of the earth, because he knows that it does not belong to him. He owns only the little that he is granted by his own mathematics. This is to him wealth.
The world belongs to the poet, to the artist, to the free spirit who treats it as his own. The capitalist threw the world away and all it's beauty when he traded it for the small pieces that he keeps on his mantle and in his bank account.
So now, more than ever he claims to this piece of elite wisdom, which justifies his claim to tyranny and seperation from his brothers and the brotherhood of man.
"Hunger creates the right of capital to rule the worker more surely than it was given to the aristocracy by the legal authority of kings."
Love
Injun Joe
Author: Injun
Posted: Sat Jun 23 2001 06:16 am
There are big things and little things in the world. The indivicual, before Scientology, has always been granted big rights by the likes of our American founding fathers, but his place has been very small in the industrial age, feeling squashed by the powers that be. In other countries it is worse. The individual needed a voice, not the voice of "an American Citizen", but the individual that he was, fun loving, full of life, the artist, the free spirit.
The world isn't perfect. Everyone has witnessed at least one time in his life when the little guy is squashed by the immorality of the strong. The little guy with his morals was nothing compared to the big guy with his policies, money and authority.
The founder of Scientology had big things in mind, for the individual, but he did it the only way that he knew would work and that was with little steps. Nver before has there been a big movement with the little guy in mind. Did he recommend that the children fight their bullies? Yes he did.
AMoung things that the average individual "knows" (but which are not true) is that governments will always be corrupt, the strong will rule the ethical. Ron knew that it didn't have to be this way and that the solution lies in recognizing the individual for what he is and giving him some policies of his own.(spiritual freedom and abilities too, but that's another subject)In the end, he hoped that indivicuals could do what it is that individuals do, be artists and enjoy the games of life, be productive and ethical citizens, execise the freedom of religion that is even protected by the creeds and codes of Scientology.
This worked fine, until around 1980 when Ron's body died.
A group of rats, by various manipulations, including forgeries and pay offs, stole the copyrights of the church and used the ownership of these as a tool to enforce the own brand of "ethics". They began writing some of their own policies, some of which "Explained" old policies. Scientology, with these new policies became a strong arm of the banks that owned them, and no longer a tool for the individual. Ethics became perverted and the entire tone of the church changed.
There are those who still identify the current church with the church as it was intended, as a place where ethics were to be the highest on the planet, and where the individual could discover his or her potential in a free environment and if he wishes reach out to protect the freedoms of others. This creates a lot of confusion. Is the church bad, is it good. Do I support the church. DO I not.
In the end, the vested interests have one secondary goal, to destroy the voice of the individual. Today, wars of conquest are not fought for territory but on an economic plain. Money justifies corruption and a man will do anything if he he is "Only doing his job". IF another voice should arise for the individual, the powers that be would destroy that one too. And they can do it, because the indiviudual waits for the state to protect his rights, and shuns any responsibility for his own freedom.
Injun
Author: VAST
Posted: Sat Jun 23 2001 07:31 am
Hello Injun. That is an excellent post. thank you for clearly defining some important points. We are fortunate to beings like you amongst us.
Author: Drew_Stevens95124
Posted: Mon Jun 25 2001 01:50 pm
Interesting discussion. But it's missing perhaps the most important element of the equation: the thetan. Money, economics, scarcity, etc., all require a dependency on MEST in order to function. A thetan who's able to operate without the usual conventions of MEST can, of course, toss economics out the window. Granted, the existing scene for most of us is that we have bodies that need attention and much tending to. But let's not forget that this state of affairs is hardly optimum. The desire, acquisition, and distribution of money is a humanoid game, and a limited one at that.
Author: Injun
Posted: Tues Jun 26 2001 07:22 am
Just a side note on this idea that exchange is the highest level that a person can attain. Exchange rules out something out of nothing. Isn't "exchange" the principle of the mest universe, the conservation of energy.
Author: Injun
Posted: Tues Jun 26 2001 07:27 am
It's funny how the principles of economics apply to mest. That's why it's called a principle, because it has broad application. It is observably true that by enforcing the principles of mest(materialism), that you can attract money like gravity attracts matter, and become just as solid in the process.
Author: Ed Rhett
Posted: Wed Jun 27 2001 01:34 am
I think we need to be careful not to confuse the basic principles of money and the suppressive games being played with money.
It isn't that money is bad. It is the fact that many, many crimes are committed in order to seize money that was not properly created or earned, and that probably half of them are not recognized by society. And of course, there is almost as much by-passed charge on money as there is on the 2nd dynamic. Or maybe more than the 2nd dynamic.
So, even though money is not represented as one of the 8 dynamics, people probably need training and clearing on the subject of money. Only then will they be able to be comfortable with money, and have enough of it.
Author: injun
Posted: Wed Jun 27 2001 05:55 am
Money isn't bad. Lies about money are bad.
Almost anyone living in a capitalistic society will tell you that they have no convictions about money. They only know certain basic truths. But they are not truths, they are convictions. Problems exist because of certain convictions about money. Money is a relative truth. It may have been a great new stable datum to a cave man, but we need some new stable datums. The word values is an easy word to grasp. Societies have thrived in aesthetics and prosperity where they have not attached that word only to money. Money, which serves as "evidence of production" becomes less important as knowingness increases.
Convictions convictions convictions. It's almost as unbearable to listen to an Ayn Rand fanatic talk about the virtue of selfishness or the righteousness of work as it is to listen to a Whitney Houstin song.
Author: Eternity
Posted: Wed Jun 27 2001 07:36 am
Hi Injun! Why does money become less important as knowingness increases?
Author: Ed Rhett
Posted: Wed Jun 27 2001 04:04 pm
Hey Injun, I liked Ayn Rand. Her books were good and her philosophy was OK. But it wasen't enough. It stopped short of being useful. For me, LRH picked up where Ayn Rand stopped.
She couldn't make the jump from responsability in the material relm to spirituality. She defined spirituality in terms of self-esteem, which was good. She stopped at a good point.
But she did not develop any tech. And I believe that anybody you would call an Ayn Rand "fanatic" probably didn't understand her on a deep level. She didn't leave enough knowledge to produce the quality of character she wrote about.
Her followers are not worth reading, for the most part.
A good lady, but her way is not the way out. It falls far short.
Author: Injun
Posted: Wed Jun 27 2001 10:38 pm
I respect yyou Ed, but Ron didn't pick up where Ayn Rand left off. Not even the same ball park. I've hard that before and, I'm sorry to say, it bothered me. You're entitled to your opinions, but that one really doesn't go over well with me.
What is the line, about how help drives a suppressive bazerk. What does the person think of help?
What did Ayn Rand think of help? 300 pages of justification for "no help", no matter how much it suits my own cold hearted ambitions, gets to be boring after a while.
Her readers do tend to be wound up with convictions, but really, I've heard it all, and it's 99 percent hogwash.
Author: Injun
Posted: Wed Jun 27 2001 10:42 pm
I got a chuckle out of the South Park episode where the chicken plucker was pushing Atlas Shrugged. I never made it past the first chapter myself, but I'm guessing that the rich guys stopped helping and everything fell apart because of the stupid poor people, then the rich guys came to the rescue. Or did I miss the plot altogether.
Author: Injun
Posted: Wed Jun 27 2001 10:44 pm
Eternity,good question. Think about it.
Author: Injun
Posted: Fri Jun 29 2001 09:57 am
Ed, no disrespect intended. My apologies if any was taken. You are right that society doesn't recognize many of the crimes committed with and for money, if I understood you correctly. I think that it has a lot to do with some really strong premises that are accepted as fact.
As for Ayn Rand, she sure has some strong beliefs and one thing that I learned about talking to an Ayn Rand enthusiast. She wrote thousands of words and her supporters read thousands of words supporting her views of the absolute rightness of capitalism(she argues that "grey"(gradient) morality is wrong. It's all black and white. Which comes in handy with her "It's not black, so that's proof that it's obviously white" arguments "and if you think otherwise, you are obiously on welfare)." Yea, one thing that i learned is that an Ayn Rand supporter isn't going to part with the beliefs established by Ayns 10,000 pages unless I give them 10,001 pages to the contrary, and although I would love to make a point, I'm trying to do it in one lifetime.
Author: yep
Posted: Mon Oct 22 2001 01:15 pm
Money Tapes on CD.
http://www.fzaoint/org
|
