Competition

[Spinoza]

KJNPF wrote: "The only collective that should be recognised is the family. I have a strong dislike for socialism and denying the individual. Collectivism is wickedly evil and for the weak minded - and those not endowed with much in life.

________________

1. Define "Socialism"
2. there are numerous clan/family based societies that deny the INDIVIDUAL too.
3. every form of Society ( be it an individualistic, is a kind of community and gives a place to people that are weak minded. You could easily state that Individualism is the attempt for weak-minded people to survive a life between strong-mi,dedpeople by just AVOIDING them, by living in a kind of cocoon.
4. Nietzsche has already proved ( just as Buddhism ) that the INDIVIDUAL ( or call it a subject like Descartes ) is a fiction. ( Please, trace the root or real meaning of INDIVIDUAL )_

[drafsack]

How come someone hasent started a Rog v Dave thread on this page yet -oohps!!!

[quicksilver]

How come someone hasent started a Rog v Dave thread on this page yet -oohps!!!

Shame on you

[drafsack]

Sorry!!

[Furious]

Its obvious that Rick Wright was the real genius behind Pink Floyd.

[drafsack]

Rick Wright's output diminished as the years passed. He was certainly up with Syd in the early years as regards to the sound. But as the years passed his input became less and less. Probably due to you know who and you know how slowly taking control.

[mosespa]

Nope. I never did get around to replying either.

Look what I found:

On 6/14/01 1:45:00 PM, The Poster Formerly Known As R.PITI wrote:
>Who here believes humans, or
>the majority of humans, in our
>society in
>particular, need to stop
>competing over so many things?
>How do you think
>competition comes about, from
>society, nature or a
>combination of both?

First of all, I think competition is not something that can be "stopped." Natural Selection is a form of competition...competition for survival.
I think it's a force of nature. Hot air currents and cold air currents collide...what happens next depends upon which force "wins the competition."

It seems to me (and please let me know if I'm off base here) that what you refer to as "competition" is a form of "greed"...trying to have more than everyone else.

Greed is an unfortunate part of the condition of perfection. People are always saying "in a perfect world." This IS a perfect world. We have light AND dark, good AND evil, mountains AND plains...etc. Greed is just the opposite of altrusim (which, when carried to extremes, can be just as morally incorrect as greed...IMHOnion.) There's nothing that can be done about it without some kind of shift in exactly what it means to BE human.

At least that's how I see it, anyway.


>I believe we, as individuals,
>should stop competing with one
>another and start
>competing with our self. We
>should strive to be all that
>we can be instead of
>striving to be the best at
>everything, which is basically
>futile.

Wouldn't "being all that you can be" presuppose competing to defeat failure to be all that you can be?

If we were to do
>this, we, collectively, would
>be the best at everything, in
>addition to freeing ourselves
>as individuals, at least in
>part, from the machine that is
>the ills of society, resulting
>in unadulterated
>individuality.
>Too idealistic? Is there
>really such a thing?

Dude...working together is what MAKES the machine. You are talking about merely replacing one machine with another. In fact, anyone who has ever talked about dismantling whatever current machine may be running is also talking about replacing it with a different machine.
No machine is without it's "flaws"...and no two people will ever agree on the best way to eliminate all of the flaws...or even on what the flaws ARE.

Why
>must we compete with others
>though?

Because they're there.

Look at it this way for a second. You have a certain goal you want to reach...whatever that goal may be, it's important to you that you reach it.
Now, someone else is after the same goal you are after. There may be plenty to go around, but you thought of reaching this goal on your own, so, it becomes YOUR PERSONAL goal.

This other guy is out to achieve YOUR goal...take YOUR dream. You don't want to let that happen, so you try to achieve it before he does.

Why not be an
>individual and compete with
>yourself to satisfy this
>characteristic?

"Aw man, you're talking about making changes within myself...that's hard work...I don't want to do that."
--Society In General.

Besides...who gives a *lit* if you take something from yourself? At least then you still have it.

Why give into
>the collective competition?
>Why HAVE WE given into the
>collective competition?

Because it's how you get ahead in the world. Progress is all about forward motion. You don't want to stand still, you stagnate and die. When you move forward, you encounter opposition (one of Newton's Laws, I think,) competition is a form of opposition. It must exist.

What you call "competing with yourself," I call "improving yourself."

God, I hate knowing everything...........
mosespa

Ah, yeah.

The funny thing is that I still feel that exact way about it.

I was going to try to write a new response that would attempt to contain all of the above elements, but then I saw that you did find my original response.

Well done, R.

Well done.

[David Smith]

Ok, i think socialists are wrong!

I'm at the tender young age of 16 where traditionally a few people in the year group (mostly the very rich kids actually) decide they're being really mature and political by telling everyone they're socialists. Hmmm, one question, why?

Don't get me wrong, this is nothing against all aspects of socailism, just the main ones.

According to Tommy Sheradon the rich people in Scotland should be taxed more (incase anyone is unfamiliar with this man, he wears rollex watches, goochie suits and has holidays paid for him from the taxes of the citizens of Scotland, NOT a hypocrit then) and then the extra that is taken from them should be divided up and spread evenly to the poorer people (in other words socialims.) Ok, so why would we want to stay here in Scotland then.

If i was a really quite rich homeowner and the socialist rules were passed (by the way, this goes for the ideas of socialism being put in to ANY country) then i would just head of down to England to save myself some money, and with all the people like me did that then the rich would be those who were once considered the lower middle class (or the middle middle class i suppose) and then the socilist ideas would have to be abandoned because these people CAN'T be taxed a huge amount because although they're considered rich they are likely to struggle if all their money is being taxed. Ultimatly socialism NEEDS rich people yet it's these people it aims to disadvantage.

And another thing, they complain because there's to much advertising, so? Almost all commercials are crap anyway and to be hinest i don't feel a crap advert could possibally encourage me to buy a product. Also, if a product is not directly advertised then it's indirectly advertised by people.

E.G Someone is walking around in a REAL GOOD pair of jeans that came froma small company and people look at them and think how good the jeans would look on them, then that to is an advert.

"I made them myself" would be the true socilalist answer, well stone me, "go and make me a pair" "ok, it's going to cost you a tenner" the socialist has now become a capitalist.

You see, people are adverts and they work a lot bettter than any run of the mill television commercial. If anyone here is socialist and wants to hands down admit to having such little control over themselves that their minds can be literally brainwashed and taken over by a commercial (a.k.a, they don't have the cerebral capacty to compete with a coca cola advert) then fine, but you're well within the minority.

"Yeah but they don't disadvantage thrid world countries"

"Well to be honest, if Starbucks pay a south african farmer like a tenner for a load of coffee beans and this is more than he would get anyway, then fine, what are you complaining about, they would be even worse off without them. I've got a part time job in a cinema, they pay me £4.62 and hour, sure they could pay me more, but i wouldn't get £4.62 an hour for not doing it so it's fair enough, i don't complain, and i ESPECIALLY WOULDN'T WANT OTHER PEOPLE TO COMPLAIN FOR ME.

Starbucks began as a very small company once and due to it being good (ok, i don't like it cause i don't like coffee, but i've heard it's good) it became a huge company, that's proof people can rise like a pheonix from the ashes, surely an encouraging sign to people.

Why say people should be taxed and stuff for no reason. People struggle to get themselves in to a good position. If i really wanted to be an acountant it would be because i get paid a lot, and ANYBODY can figure that out. After I TRY HARD to get qualifications to be an accountant and finally get a job i see no reason why i should be rewarded by having money chored from me because i figured out that accountancy= a lot of money.

People i feel should follow their goals and we shouldn't be taxed more for showing determination. Only people with hereditory titles (e.g royals and lords) should be taxed more because they get money for nothing (and their chicks for free.) But other than that the idea of socilaism is greatly hypocritical. Let people make themselves money and put a RESTRICTION to how much money they can keep. Correct me if i'm wrong but socialists should also beleive that people should not be restricted from a top standard of living by financial situations and restrictions, so why do they feel it's right to place a restriction on how much money people can make. Just leave us alone to make our money and the world would be so much better.

[Keith Jordan]

Animal Farm comes to mind by Orwell. I like my interpretation of that book as it sayd socialism is just another form of control by the rich and powerful!! 2 legs good 4 legs bad!!

[mosespa]

________________

1. Define "Socialism"
2. there are numerous clan/family based societies that deny the INDIVIDUAL too.
3. every form of Society ( be it an individualistic, is a kind of community and gives a place to people that are weak minded. You could easily state that Individualism is the attempt for weak-minded people to survive a life between strong-mi,dedpeople by just AVOIDING them, by living in a kind of cocoon.
4. Nietzsche has already proved ( just as Buddhism ) that the INDIVIDUAL ( or call it a subject like Descartes ) is a fiction. ( Please, trace the root or real meaning of INDIVIDUAL )_

1. "Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good." (Ayn Rand, "For The New Intellectual;" reprinted without permission.)

2. Yes...that is why you strike out on your own when you grow up.

3. I disagree with you...that is not individualism...that is seperatism.

4. Nietzsche...hasn't he been proven a madman? Seriously...hasn't it been determined that he suffered from some form of psychosis? An individual is ONE person...that's the only real definition, isn't it? One.

Is that so hard to comprehend?

And if you can prove that the individual is a fiction, then you can prove that you, yourself are a fiction, correct?

If you are not a fiction, then you must be an individual.

No disrespect, Spinoza, but it seems to me that the central crux of your philosophy is to maintain chaos in the face of attempts to explain rational order.

It's like those people who say "If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Well...sound is a disruption of air molecules. Sound waves are generated even if there is no sound equipment to pick them up.

The argument that perception IS reality is mistaken.

Perception is an interpretation of reality. Reality exists independent of perception. It must, else there would be nothing to perceive.

[Keith Jordan]

Perception is an interpretation of reality. Reality exists independent of perception. It must, else there would be nothing to perceive.

It is thought provoking isn't it. That which is hard to imagine can still exist! I wonder what the world really looks like?? It is not how I see it!

[David Smith]

Would it not be cool if you weren't actually in your house using a computer, but that's catually just a bit of group hallucination and we're actually on top of a VERY big mountain?

Just a thought.

[Keith Jordan]

Sometimes I find it hard to remember what was a dream and what was reality. I suppose the two are just creations of my mind anyway so I guess I can change the world... with a few beers!!

[David Smith]

Never take the world at face value, i want everyone to do this:

Put your face against the television (for this you will need a LARGE television) and look at what you see. It may look like a lot of dots or just a part of something (depending on your eyesight) but now look back and it's revealed. it's all part of a much bgger picture and it all looks so much less complicated. Gone is the confusion and it's all more clear.

Eventually we will see the world in the same way, just remember, it's all about how we look at it, and a simple change in our lives may help us see the bigger picture.

[mosespa]

Perception is an interpretation of reality. Reality exists independent of perception. It must, else there would be nothing to perceive.

It is thought provoking isn't it. That which is hard to imagine can still exist! I wonder what the world really looks like?? It is not how I see it!

I suppose it depends on what your standards to guage are.

If you accept that what is called "white light" is that which reveals the true nature of colour, then it would follow that your blue car is actually blue. If, however, you use red light as the standard, then your car might actually be purple. If you choose blue light as the standard by which you guage what colour something truly is, then your car would likely be white.

Of course, there are other factors that "color" the perception of colour. Your eyes, themselves, for example.

One might have a vision impairment commonly referred to as colour-blindedness in which, say, greens and reds appear similar.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the nature of the objects being viewed or with whatever it is that makes them appear to be whatever colour they appear to be.

The only anomaly is within the viewer's organ of perception.

Follow me so far?

If I had to guess, I would think that matter is actually grey...but it's not a uniform shade. The shade would be determined by, say, the texture of the matter. If it's rough, it's a darker shade and if it's smooth, it's a lighter shade. Or perhaps mass determines shade.

At any rate, the differences in texture and mass might respond to different parts of whatever light the object is being viewed under...as in the examples given above.

Our sense of sight is composed of both the act of sorting through a spectrum of light in which certain frequencies are being reflected and other frequencies absorbed by the objects surrounding us, and by whatever interpretation our brain makes of the end result.

The "true" reality (that is, the irreducible primary that is what it is regardless of perceptions and interpretations...objective reality,) enters the eyes and is turned into information to be processed by the brain. The brain then presents the information in a manner consistent with what it has been taught. Opinions are formed based on criteria the brain has stored in a "file" called, "This Is How Things Are According To What I've Experienced Thus Far," or something similar.

This is where subjectivity begins to enter. The information which entered through your eyes and was processed by your brain now hits your concious mind and you have some sort of emotional response to it.

The wonderful thing about emotional responses is that they are voluntary. You can always choose to feel something different that what you feel as a "knee-jerk reaction." Even if one chooses to feel "nothing," the very concept of nothing presupposes the notion of "something."

In order to lack something, it must be decided what is being lacked.

Absence presupposes presence.