Karl

I'm assuming you mean the Koch brothers ? Never really got a handle on what they were, they aren't free market supporters that's for certain. Both Mises and Rothbard would have nothing to do with them, despite being initially duped into Supporting the creation of their institute. They seem to be Neo Cons ? hell bent on hijacking the term 'libertarian' for their own use. A kind of Orwellian Neo con think tank. Seem to have shown their horns more over the recent years.

I did say 'free' market capitalism and not 'crony' market capitalism. Pro-consumer, anti-business in other words. Monsanto and the other agri chem businesses are most certainly at the crony end of the spectrum, other businesses to a lesser extent, but all like state regulation and other edicts to stamp out their potential competitors. It applies equally to Taxi drivers seeking to prevent Uber and unions who want the 'living wage' to prevent labour price competition. Everyone is at it to some extent, trying to feather their nests at the expense of everyone else by touting for state privileges. So, true, free markets without any coercive state interventionism are individuals essentially working hard to make each other happier and by doing so, make themselves happier. Perfect service to fellow man and increasing peace and prosperity for everyone.

Do you think individuals within a group, trading peacefully and wholly voluntarily with each other, producing things for each other in such a way as to try and outdo each other's service, to reach ever higher states of satisfaction, by honest industrious effort. Would that be a better politic ? I wasn't a fan of thatcher either, but I'm not a fan of any political organisation forcing its will on those beneath them.

Is this a 'thatcher' thing ? The socialists golden age of economic collapse ruined by Thatcherism which managed to extricate Britain from financial ruin and get that evil capitalism going again. No doubt we are going to get the Gordon Gecko quotes and all the rest about greed.

I watched that previously. Steve Keen just seems to me to be like a new age economist. His ideas don't make any sense, it's as if he is unable to get beyond a limited view of economics. First he says it's idiotic to believe money doesn't matter which I agree with, as it certainly does matter, but then that's not actually what he is saying. He seems unfamiliar with the laws of comparative advantage, or that having a balance of trade surplus isn't necessarily a good thing. It's very weird. I think he is just a macro economist, which is to say, a modern day crystal ball gazer.

What do you find compelling about what he says ? Did you live through the 70s era in Britain ? This is what Corbyn represents. Those that are currently flocking to support him are a very young crowd and a few older Marxist types, that's why I asked. To call him 'a god' is a big stretch ? Still, it will make a quicker end to the Labour Party and not drag it out.

Lenin was always a good listener and Trotsky had a lot to say. Although he was young and untested, Trotsky had a reputation as a writer and organizer that preceded him into Europe. Lenin and his fellowIskraeditors followed events in Russia as best they could, reading newspapers and underground literature, eager to keep their fingers on the pulse of revolution and reaction. While Trotsky’s experiences in Nikolaev and Odessa amounted to a small-bore adventure, they demonstrated to Lenin how Marxist ideas were percolating throughout the empire, inspiring articulate and committed young people who might someday, whocouldsomeday,... Then came the murders, imprisoning, gulags, starvation and eventual collapse of the Soviet Union. You must be quite young Apech or you wouldn't fall for this defunct and dangerous ideology.

Have you tried a powerball. They work pretty well. Helped me with drumming.

http://ericpetersautos.com/2015/08/04/the-war-on-cars-parked-and-otherwise/ In what ways is the U.S. As bad, if not worse than Greece.

You will always be thinking of yourself-even when you are thinking of others and that's entirely natural. It's the false identification with the mind/body. It's thinking there is an ego stopping you from being the way you envisage, instead of realising you are simply you are as you are and being contented, as that, unified and whole. As soon as you say 'fall short' then that is the trap you have set yourself. 'Fall short' means 'I did not achieve what I thought I should achieve'. Now you are disagreeing with reality. You are trying to force reality to bend to your will. This is, as Ramana said 'to be after the world'. The way to stay aligned is to accept each reality unquestioningly. Even when the thought happens 'I should be accepting these things and I am not' then this must also be accepted as reality. 'I reject reality' is the same thing. Accept that though as reality because that IS the reality. There is no arriving, there is no place to get to, or from.

You realise that's a logical syllogism ? Buddah hasn't provided the first proof-that there is an "unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed." However, logic proves that to be true. The rest of the syllogism is then entirely valid given that the universe is uncreated. And you said we had gone off topic ? Buddah was using Aristotlian logic to validate his conclusion. It's not perfect but it certainly shows how he was proceeding. Very cool. New respect for Buddah. I've not looked at Confuciusian philosophy, but I would be amazed if he wasn't using the same process. So, there were Greek, Chinese and Indian philosopher 2.5 K years ago developing logical argument along pretty much identical lines. Learning higher reasoning ability and dispensing with myth. Enlightenment then was quite clearly the use of logic, in place of early practices of mysticism, thought Brahmans, austerities and prolonged meditation.

Love not like. They are different. Yes, if my house burns down I love that, but I do not like that. I accept that it is that way and don't seek to reject the feelings of pain, discomfort, grief etc, or the reality of the situation. It's unpleasant, but that isn't rejected either. That's all I can tell you. It works for me.

Can you translate that into 'thick as a brick' working mans English ? All those descriptions of 'mind' are objective descriptions. They might apply to a piece of polished metal, say, like Gold. Then 'true knowledges'. What does that mean ?

Yes, it is. If anybody was 'in denial' or defending, then that would be me and me alone. I don't require something to blame.

That's loving reality. Anytime there is attachment then love that reality. It's only when it's thought that something should be the way it is that the problems occur. If you feel fear, despair, sadness, then allow it and love that reality too. Never push away that which is feared, notice it, pay attention to it, love the reality of it. This has to be done consistently. Once freed enough from the constant turmoil of emotion then it was possible to develop higher reasoning skills. To learn how to learn and separate out rope from snake.

I have no idea what you are saying. I'm getting into well into middle age, so I've had many, many, many setbacks. At one point I seriously considered killing myself after years of manic depression. Those kind of things provide great incentive to discover a solution. I found one. I have no idea if it's the only one, but it works.

And then figure out how to kill it with a thought. I'm having a Moby Dick moment.

Hope it's not still floating around your brain like a mouldy hula hoop.

Just remember that I noticed you have dodged the question and not provided an answer. :-)

'humans are in conflict to some degree'. Isn't that the truth ? In NLP terms it was called 'parts' and the task was to integrate them. So, recognise the conflict and resolve it. We have concepts that arise as thoughts and fight with each other as we try and make sense of them. There is nothing wrong with this conflict, it is entirely natural. It's only when we refuse to solve it, hold both conflicting views simultaneously or worse still, think that we should not be in conflict in the first place which then begins a chain.

Have you met a living human being that has killed their ego ?

One is not the other. There is only the self. If you want to see a egoic construct then that's what you will see. If you want to call it dualistic,mor a manifestation then it will be that also. If you say that dragons exist for you, then I assume they do. They don't exist for me.

Been there done that. Try cutting off your arm to save your arm. If such a thing as ego exists, then it is integral, there is no way to split it or kill it. Have you killed your ego ? Have you ever met anyone who has ? Like the master did to his student when the student announced he was free of attachment. He told the student to him to swim naked and then he stole the students clothes and gave them to some passing vagabonds. Funny how the ego seemed to come back when the student saw what has happened. I don't worry or care ego or not ego. It's immaterial either way. I seek neither to destroy or maintain.

It can't. Man acts to improve his position. Always there is the selfish motive however well disguised. We do something in order to move from a position of greater unease to one of less. Isn't that exactly why we are here seeking whatever we happen to be seeking ? That is why I say that you cannot subordinate and surrender completely, there is the element of surrender for some purpose.

Ultimately it cannot be done, but that doesn't matter as long as you form the impression that it can be so. It begins breaking down the 'I am the doer' thought. Until 'I am the perciever' is the more prominent. Then finally just perceiving without either the thought 'I am the doer' 'I am the perciever'.