a new understanding of today, time and space.

K: as I am now working off of my
iPad because my computer died. So this isn’t going
to be pretty, so hang in there.

The problem I see with your philosophy is
The inability to connect the individuals philosophy
with any type of collective philosophy. If everyone was as fractured as you, we couldn’t even be
able to hold any type of collective discourse.
People would be so caught up in their own
individual “existential contraption” that collective
discourse would become impossible. Your
philosophy is a roadmap to solipsism.
And as much fun as that sounds, uh no.

The human question we face is as much a
individual one as a collective one. Whatever individual answer we find, must fit
Into the overall, collective answer we seek.

It is not about me, but about we. And in to
get to some collective understanding about who
we are, we have to sort out our individual
Questions.

I am a man, a liberal, philosopher, married,
American, heterosexual, Californian, atheist.

Each of these “labels” have an individual aspect
And a collective aspect.

And each to make sense, must have a collective
aspect along with the individual aspect.

This is why philosophies like Stirner failed.
As human beings, we are, for better or worse,
connected to each other. We cannot dismiss
a million years of biology and evolution to
turn away from each other. All philosophy at
some point must come to grasp with both
our individual self IN connection to
our collective self. What is your collective
answer to the human condition?

Kropotkin

K: as I am now working off of my
iPad because my computer died. So this isn’t going
to be pretty, so hang in there.

The problem I see with your philosophy is
The inability to connect the individuals philosophy
with any type of collective philosophy. If everyone was as fractured as you, we couldn’t even be
able to hold any type of collective discourse.
People would be so caught up in their own
individual “existential contraption” that collective
discourse would become impossible. Your
philosophy is a roadmap to solipsism.
And as much fun as that sounds, uh no.

The human question we face is as much a
individual one as a collective one. Whatever individual answer we find, must fit
Into the overall, collective answer we seek.

It is not about me, but about we. And in to
get to some collective understanding about who
we are, we have to sort out our individual
Questions.

I am a man, a liberal, philosopher, married,
American, heterosexual, Californian, atheist.

Each of these “labels” have an individual aspect
And a collective aspect.

And each to make sense, must have a collective
aspect along with the individual aspect.

This is why philosophies like Stirner failed.
As human beings, we are, for better or worse,
connected to each other. We cannot dismiss
a million years of biology and evolution to
turn away from each other. All philosophy at
some point must come to grasp with both
our individual self IN connection to
our collective self. What is your collective
answer to the human condition?

Kropotkin

Double post sorry

double post

Yah you know. Double post

Still on iPad.

This question of an equation, is best found
during the years between 1850 and 1900.

You have the rise of capitalism and the industrial
Revolution. With this rise came another rise, the
rise of both anarchism and socialism. These
Two ideologies rose as part of the equal and opposite
reaction to the industrial revolution and capitalism.

Then again during the Great Depression, around the world,
both communism and socialism rose in response
to the clear and obvious failure of capitalism,
and the industrial revolution.

History is full of reactions to events, Equal and
opposite reactions. The British tried to get
the Americas to pay taxes and the end result
was the war of Independence. Much of history
is this push and pull of actions and responses
to these actions.
History properly understood is the understanding of actions and reactions to these actions.

Not only our collective history is actions and
reaction but individually. Much of our own
personal reactions to the world is reactions to
actions. Parents tell their children not to smoke or
not to steal or not to do drugs or have sex, and
the next thing we did was to do one or more of
these “forbidden” things, equal and opposite
reaction.

So among your actions and/or beliefs are the reactions to someone else actions or reactions?

What do you hold to be true as a response to
another’s actions or reaction?

It could be argued that all human responses are
basically from us in reaction to someone or something else?

We can see that every action right now is
either in response to the virus or is response to the
political response to the virus.

So those protesting the political response to the
Virus, are reacting, the equal and opposite response
to the virus and the political response to the virus.

So how did you respond to the virus or the
political response to the virus?

Was your response an equal and opposite to
the current situation?

Kropotkin

If we could discover a rational
moral principle, I.E a definitive
demand upon our Behavior made
by reason, not by our biological
or psychological impulses or
desires or urges, as noted by Kant.

Our morality and laws are designed to
curb our urges, desires, needs both physical
and psychology.

“Thou shall not” is aimed at those
urges and desires that plague us.

But we also have needs, and the law
also forbids us from meeting those which
keeps us alive. To eat when no other choice
is possible, we turn to a violation of morality
and the law. We steal bread. To meet a basic
biological need of ours or to feed our children.

So ask yourself, what is the greater crime,
For a person to steal bread from another or
for a person to starve in the midst of plenty?

If you say stealing, then you believe
in property before people’s lives. Is property,
material goods really a higher priority before
peoples lives?

At this point I don’t see how we can create
a completely rational morals principles.

Morality and the laws are designed to
protect property and to punish desires
and urges and even needs like hunger.

But our morality and laws are a failure
if they don’t react or a person or a child
who is starving as against the laws or morality.

In other words, it is just as immoral for
a person to starve as it is to steal. Ours
laws and our morality must condemn
society that allows a starving person
As it does a thief.

If we don’t meet the basic biological needs
of our citizens with as much codemnation
as we treat stealing, then property has more
value then a starving person. Is that a Christian
message we want to send?

If there are starving people, then we are
not “pro-life”. For we must connect our words
with our actions. For this is the true meaning
morality. We hold to the basic premise that
meeting our basic physical needs of food,
water, shelter, education and health care,
meeting those needs is what being moral means.

Morality has a collective value of meeting the
needs of the society and the individual with
that society.

What moral action have you taken toward
your fellow human beings?

Kropotkin

We have private, individual, morality, apart from
our collective, society morality. I have my
own private set of values that I will not
depart from…I don’t hit women or children,
I won’t steal from someone, I don’t commit acts
of violence, my base from which I start from
is peace… I understand that other people
are like me… To commit violence or to
denigrate people is to devalue or dehumanize
other people. To act with the certainty that others
have the same rights and values as I do. They are
human too. Justice, to treat people with justice
is to engage with people with equality. We all exists
on the same plain, no higher or lower, equal.

We all have, because we are the same…human,
the same biological needs and the same desires,
and the goal of achieving our possibilities…
now my possibilities are different then your
possibilities. I do not have the possibilities as
you because I have different abilities and
talents and different education and bodily
differences like my hearing loss.
Our differences means our possibilities are
different.

But those differences don’t make us any less
human, just different.

IQ45 has publicly said that “illegal aliens are
subhuman”

He is negating, dehumanizing others…
And that is wrong, immoral, because it
does negate, dehumanizing human beings.

He does so on the basis of an “us” versus “them”,
ideology… If you are not “us”, then you are
less then me and my chosen group.
That is not equality nor is it justice.
That is the problem with an “us” vs “them”
understanding… In my own private values,
I reject an “us” vs “them” because it creates
an artificial divide between people and other
people, groups, nationalities, religions, genders,
and the color of one’s skin.

I don’t accept the concept of looking at people
via their differences. We should see people based
on their sameness, their similarities, their closeness
to who I am… My affinity to others lies in
our similar needs, our similar desires, our
similar goals of achieving our possibilities…

As long as we see other people as “other”,
we cannot achieve our own goal.

For the bottom line of human existence is the
undeniable fact that because of biology and
evolution, we are social creatures, bound to
each other, for education, for meeting our
basic needs, for satisfying our desires, for
the goal of achieving our possibilities…

My own personal goals and values are tied up
into our collective goals and values.

I do not and cannot act individually for I am
bound to the collective, we call human beings.

And whatever values I deem to be mine, must
have an collective nature…

To be technically correct, there is no you or me,
there is only us.

Kropotkin

You might say, I must achieve or meet my
needs. I must achieve the bottom, basic
needs of being human. I need food, water,
shelter, education, health care, to name some
of the bodily needs that all humans have.
But you cannot, cannot achieve these needs
by yourself. Without other people, we cannot
meet our basic needs. You might say, I desire love,
but love and those other basic needs of esteem
and security/safety, cannot happen without others.

Your desires can only be fulfilled in others,
as with esteem and safety/security and belonging.
Your needs, desires, urges can only be met
within a collective, not individually…

Only in others can your needs, desires, urges ever
get fulfilled. That is the legacy of our biology and
our evolution. We need others to meet our needs
and desires.

And here lies why we must treat others with
value and virtue. Because we need them.
We cannot reach who we are without their help.

Or to be blunt, why should I help you if you
are a dick to me?

And here lies the course of our laws and morality.

It is in our own self interest to seek justice being
done. It is within our own self interest to seek
equality because within equality, we can meet
our own needs and desires. If I am not treated
equally, what is my incentive to help you achieve
your needs and desires?

This new viewpoint requires us to rethink
our current values and reevaluate what it means
to be human.

Can you achieve your needs and desires without
others?

Good luck with that…

Kropotkin

As a human being, I can only exist in
relation to others. As Kropotkin, I cannot
exist in isolation to others. Every single aspect
of my existence is determined by others.

I do not grow my own food and my electricity
is done by others and my education was
done in schools and I am protected by
both the police and fire departments…

I cannot be who I am without others…
that is simply a statement of fact.

So what does that mean politically?

What is true of us individually, that we cannot
exist without others, is true collectively…

In other words, the collective cannot survive
without me…

Think of it this way, the Roman Empire fell
because the average individual was negated,
Dehumanized by the Roman state. This led
the average citizen to simply take their energy
away from the continuation of the state to the
promise of Christianity… Why engage in a state
that brings me no value? What is in it for me to
continue the Roman Empire? Truth be told,
there was no value for the average citizen
to hold to the Roman Empire. The empire didn’t
meet any of the needs that an average
person had. The state couldn’t protect or
feed or secure the rights of the average person
in the Roman Empire. In any state where it’s
everyone for themselves, is a state that will
lose the allegiance of its citizens…

If the theory of rugged individualism were true,
there would no point to having a state…

So what should a state hold to?

What are the basic requirements of the state?

What values should the state hold?

Kropotkin

A state must hold to certain ideas…

One: we are dependent on each other to
reach our needs and desires and urges.
I cannot achieve my needs of food, water,
shelter, education, health care by myself.
And I cannot reach my desires and urges by
myself. The desires of love and esteem and
security and belonging are achieved though
others.

If I want to achieve my needs and desires, I
need the help of others. And if you want
to reach your needs and desires, you
need my help. The current path of an
adversarial relationship between people and/or
the state, prevents me from achieving my needs
and desires and it prevents you from achieving
your needs and desires. It is only in the give and
take of relationships that will allow both of
us to reach our goals…if you support me in
my goal of going to school and being educated, and
I will support your goal of meeting your goals,
of having your needs met. This can work because
our goals and needs are different from each other.
My needs and goals at 61 are vastly different
then they were at 21 or 31 or 41…

The current conservative viewpoint of, I have
mine, fuck you and your attempts to meet
your needs and desires… Cannot hold because
it devalues and negates your needs and desires…
Why should I engage if only your values and needs
are met?

What is my incentive to work with you?

Much of our current political and social
dysfunction is caused by our egotistical
belief that I have mine and so, fuck you.

And we will continue to be plague
by dysfunction until we learn to work with
each other in an honest attempt to achieve our
respective needs and goals, with each other.

So we begin by asking, what is the value/point
of government? We answer that by an honest
understanding of our own understanding of
what it means to be human?

We are social creatures, that can exist and
meet our needs and desires by working with
each other. I cannot achieve anything by
myself, I need you as you need me.

So government is the engagement of
people working together to met our
own needs and desires. You scratch my back,
and I scratch your back…this is what the real
meaning of the phrase: government of the
people, for the people and by the people, means.

A selfish person will in the end, wind up
without their needs being met because I see no reason to help or aid a person who won’t
help or aid me. It is only by honest cooperation
that our needs and desires will be met.

Kropotkin

The question of equality is found in
a proper understanding of evolution…

It can be compared to the equailzation of
the earth due to the revolution caused by
the Copernican revolution…

Where is up and down in reference to
evolution? Can we say that this person
or that person is “superior” given the
implications of evolution?

I might have a talent you don’t but you might
have an talent I don’t have, and how do
we understand “superiority” given
talent is due to nothing more then random
acts of the mixing of cells that created you or
me. My parents had a modest bit of athleticism,
and I was the kid in my family who inherited it…
It was random who got the athleticism and
who didn’t… I cannot make any claims of
superiority given the random nature of any
skills or talents I may have received.

Should I claim any type of superiority
given the randomness of evolution.

So given the equality of evolution, can we deny
equality as a primary facet of existence?

Kropotkin

But Kropotkin, how can you deny the superiority of people?

You see one person’s superiority over another all the time…

and on which superiority should we deem as the “most” superior?

Intelligence or strength or wit or money or speed or ability to lift weights?

to claim the intelligent man is the “superior” man is to highlight something
that is as random as any other feature we might have…

is looks the “superior” feature we should proclaim as the “superior”
feature?

how would one be able to judge which feature is the superior one?

I for one, am unable to make some judgement as to which feature, looks, intelligence,
strength, eyesight, wit or money is the “superior” one…

to proclaim one man superior over another requires some judgement as to what
is “superior”… is the “ubermensch” really a superior person? depends on
which criteria one uses…

it makes more sense to see every human being as equal, then try to interpose
some utterly random feature which can be defined as “superior”…

this is true of an individual and is true collectively…

the Nazi’s proclaimed themselves “superior” based on claims that
cannot be proven…the Greeks felt themselves “superior” to others…
their word for non-Greek was “Barbarian” an uncivilized and brutal person.
another definition is unsophisticated or uncivilized…foreign or rude…

From what basis did IQ45 proclaim those from Mexico as “Subhuman”…
and immigrant gangs as “animals”…when we can, from another standpoint,
call IQ45 a “barbarian” an uncivilized or brutal, unsophisticated person…

one can compare IQ45 to Obama and then we can clearly call IQ45 a
“Barbarian”…

comparing and contrasting depends on who we are comparing and contrasting…
and what criteria we use…

the question of equality comes from the fact that we have no way to
understand what is “superior” based on evolution because evolution
is random and chaotic…it doesn’t have a goal…it just is…

and we are, because of evolution, social creatures that must engage
with others because we are unable to deal with our needs and desires
by ourselves… we need others to fill our needs and desires…

the entire question of social, political, economic and philosophical is
one of, how do we fulfill our needs and desires?

and if our needs and desires are equal, then the process to
achieve our needs and desires also need to be equal…

hence a democracy is best for us… it is a means best suited to
reach our goal of meeting our needs and desires equally…

that is politically, economically however, capitalism is not the best
method to reach equality for us, economically…

communism or socialism is clearly better for us to reach
our needs equally…without giving preference to any one group
or person…

and that is the key… to avoid giving preference to one or many…
justice is another word for equality…

we must practice the art of meeting our needs with equality and justice…

Kropotkin

On the contrary, down through the ages any particular “I” has been “connected” to any number of historical, cultural and experiential “collective philosophies.” Including assessments of what life means, religious beliefs, moral narratives, political agendas. Customs, folkways, mores.

And we can sustain a discussion like this because there are any number of variables embedded in human interactions that unfold in the either/or world. Even in regard to conflicting moral and political goods there are facts that can be ascertained. Facts that, for example, defend and sustain keeping social distancing policies. Facts that defend and sustain opening up the economy. Facts used to support the unborn babies right to life. Facts used to support the pregnant woman’s right to choose. Facts for and against a citizens right to bear arms. And on and on and on.

My distinction here is between the moral objectivists and the moral nihilists. Given a particulat context relating to particular behaviors in conflict. Given the manner in which I construe this as the embodiment of dasein. Instead, in my view, you almost always avoid that. At least with me.

This sort of thing…

Yes, and others, in completely different sets of circumstances, supporting completely different political prejudices, can basically say the same thing. That’s the part I attribute to dasein. The part that revolves around this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

What I then do [over and over and over again] in exchanges of this sort is to ask others how this is not applicable to them…in regard to their own value judgments.

Given a particular context.

And, in regard to “a man in the midst of mankind”, the points I raise on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Again, how is this not applicable to the “I” of others given a particular social, political or economic “situation” likely to be familiar to most of us here.

What would be of most interest to me here is if someone who embraced Stirner’s philosophy would engage in a discussion with you in regard to actual human interactions that precipitated opposing political agendas.

Any takers?

The role of government is twofold, the first
is to oversee how our needs are met and
the second is arbitrate between two conflicting
needs. To arbitrate is to set limits in regards
to our needs and desires and urges.

We cannot allow needs and desires and urges
of one, some, few or many to disrupt or
endanger the balance of our systems, be it
political, social or economic. Excessive pursuit
of our needs, desires, urges throws the
system out of balance.

As I have noted before, the desire of the right
wing/ prolife movement is “ad hoc” because
it isn’t followed consistently. Pro-lifers hold
contradicting beliefs in regard to life.

They favor such anti-life propositions as the
Death penalty, allowing the police to use
fatal/ excessive force to defend themselves,
to abandon the child’s right to exist by
denying such programs as WIC and SNAP.
To force children to be born and then deny
the parents the means to feed children. That
is not pro-life. Another anti-life belief is
the notion that guns and violence is an answer
to what threatens you. If you own a gun,
you are advocating violence and the threat of
violence as an solution to some problem…

Let us be clear, violence and the threat of violence,
is not pro-life. But you might say, I “need”
a gun to protect my life and my family’s life.
This fear and paranoia doesn’t change the fact
that the odds of some violence occurring to you
or your family is extremely low. Our age is by far,
the safest age in world history. Our times has
less personal violence then at any other
time in world history.

Anyway, back at the ranch, it is not only
in seeking our needs and desires that
government exists but in limiting those
needs and desires that government exists.

So how are we to hold to the balancing
Act of allowing some needs and desires and
limiting others?

This is in part, a personal understanding of
values and collective understanding of values.

We can seek an understanding of values, needs,
And desires with an honest evaluation of
who we are. To follow Socrates in “knowing thyself”
and examining our life, can lead us to a true
evaluation of our needs, desires and urges.
which can lead us to an better understanding
of the role that government can play in
allowing or limiting our needs, desires and urges.

How do we reach our goal of meeting our
needs, desires and urges, individually and
collectively?

Kropotkin

IAM, just read your post. Let me think about
it.

We have morality and we have “legal”.
As I have noted before, the two are not
synonymous. You can have legal and not moral.
For example slavery was legal, Jim Crow laws
were legal, the Holocaust was legal,
the denial of rights of one, few, some or all
of an race, religion, color, sex orientation,
political beliefs or nationality, can be legal
but not necessarily moral.

The miser who evicts the old woman
from her home might be legal, but it isn’t moral…

How do we understand the difference?

A defining definition of a human being can
be made in terms of needs, desires and urges.

A human being needs, must have to survive,
food, water, shelter, air, education, Health care,
to some basic needs… We also have psychology
needs of love, safety/security, belonging,
esteem to name a few psychology needs.

Now why is evicting an old woman “immoral”?
Legal but immoral?

If we are deprived of our basic needs by actions
of others, deprived of food, water, shelter,
Health care or an education, then that is immoral.

To be deprived of the basic essentials of existence,
is what it means to be immoral. Morality
revolves around the acquisition of needs
And we must engage in the acquisition of needs
in order to survive. And preventing that
acquisition of bodily needs is immoral.

We send people to prison for crimes committed
and yet we still give them basic bodily needs like
food, water, education and health care. Why do we
give those needs to those in prison and deny it
outside of prison?

People are in prison for either trying to meet
their needs or to fulfill their desires. To throw
someone into jail for trying to meet their
bodily needs is immoral. Which leaves us the
problem of desires and urges…

We can see how our response to desires and urges
change over time… At one time, recently,
homosexuals were denied their desires and urges
as being immoral and illegal…recently, to
meet one’s desires/urges to smoke weed was illegal.

We have adapted our legal system to adapt to
needs and desires. To seek love is a need, to seek
belonging is a need…and we denied those basic
needs of homosexuals by denying them the
right I enjoy of marriage…that is immoral…
To deny rights to some and allow to others
based on artificial dogma or unproven edict.

For here lies the concept of justice/equality…
To deny to some which we allow to others is
injustice, inequality…and immoral.

The equation must be maintained…

If we forbid, then that act is forbidden to all,
and if we allow to some, then that act is allowed to
all.

Morality is tied into justice and equality…

To deny basic bodily needs, on any grounds,
is immoral. To deny justice/equality, on
any grounds, is immoral.

If we allow some to vote, then we must allow
all to vote or we are being immoral/unjust.

Much of our confusion will go away if we clearly
define and understand our needs, desires and urges,
and we then build our laws around meeting
our basic bodily needs and limit desires and
urges that upset the equation that keeps our
Society and lives in balance…

Laws are not about right or wrong, but about
needs, desires, urges and maintaining the
balance in both our individual lives and within
Society…

What is justice?

Meeting our basic bodily needs…

Kropotkin

We have needs, desires, urges which leads us
to take some action or another to fulfill
those needs, desires, urges…

Now let us take, for example, my desires as
an test case.

Do I desire or have an urge for material goods
or money? No, not at all. I have argued against
them as damaging to both the soul and nature
of what it means to be human. So, what is my
desire? I wish to gain understanding or knowledge
of what it means to human, both individually
and collectively. So how do I strive to reach my
goal? I read books, I think about it, I write,
as in these posts…does this striving
have anything to do with needs? No,
my bodily needs are well met… I will,
this month and next month and the month after,
shall have sufficient food, water, shelter, health
care… And my psychological needs will also
be taken care of, I have love and safety,
belonging, esteem…my bodily and psychological
needs are easily met…

I want to gain intellectual knowledge and
understanding…

So in my pursuit of “the truth” I am not
in any, way, shape or form, interfering with
your pursuit of bodily needs or psychological
needs. Another way to think of this is, I am
being moral… And legal…

Let us say, my desires/ urges lead me to hurt
people… As some desires/urges do lead one to…

I am being both immoral and illegal.

And society has a right to protect itself/others
from my illegal and immoral actions.

So far, so good…

Let us say I want to vote and society, for whatever
reason denies me my right to vote…

As others have the right to vote, to deny me my
right to vote is not only immoral but illegal.

We cannot extend to some and deny to others…
based on any bias, prejudice, superstition
or bigotry, my right to vote. Justice to be
justice, must be equal…to all…

As we live in a democracy, equality must, must
Exists as an right for all or it isn’t a democracy…

Our engagement with our political system, must
be inclusive or it isn’t a democracy.

Democracy by its very name means rule of the
majority…rights and freedoms must be for all,
or they are for none.

What all this is saying is simple, either we take
our rights, obligations, responsibilities, needs,
desires, urges seriously or we admit that we
are half assing it. We need to reengage with
what it means to be human in a democracy.

The battle is not only to be human individually,
But collectively…

We simply assume that we know, really know,
what it means to be an American or to be
Patriotic or to be human or to what our needs,
desires, urges actually means…

We are mistaken about so much because we
assume so much…individually and collectively…

We assume that it is good to make as our engagement of being human, the pursuit of
happiness is the pursuit of wealth or
material goods. It is just an assumption, nothing
more.

What are your needs, values, goals, desires and
urges? It is only by “knowing thyself” or
An examination of values or an examination of
who you are, will you know what it means to be human…

Kropotkin

I am a materialist who reject materialism
as a means of discovering who we are…

But given the understanding of the equation,
Matter/mass = energy…

I am energy trying to understand upon what
we should be spending our energy on?

The Kantain questions of, what am I to do?
What am I to hope for? What can I know?
Are not questions of matter or materialism,
But are questions of energy…what should
we expend my/ our energy upon? The question
of existence is a question of energy, not a question
of matter/mass…

And the answer of energy is convertible into
matter/mass…

So, the proper question is, is the pursuit of
materialism/goods/ wealth, worth our energy?

And the answer is no… We can get a better
rate of return from seeking truth or knowledge
Or wisdom or the meaning of existence then
from the pursuit of wealth or the pursuit of
wealth… The pursuit of material goods isn’t
worth the effort we put into it because all we get
out of the pursuit of wealth is nothing more
then material goods or wealth… There is no
wisdom or knowledge or truth or understanding
from the pursuit of wealth/ materials…

The pursuit of wealth leads one to only
wealth/ material goods, nothing else…

It becomes an endless cycle that has no
Other purpose then the accumulation of more
wealth/ material goods…what is a very good
description of modern society? Hamsters going
endlessly around and around and around, the
the hamster wheel… Why? Because that is all
that be accomplished in a world dictated
by the pursuit of wealth…wealth has no other
purpose then to gain more wealth…

The pursuit of wealth cannot lead us anywhere
else besides the pursuit of wealth…how does one
one find meaning or purpose in the ongoing
pursuit of wealth?

What should we spend our energy upon?

That is the question, or one of them anyway…

Kropotkin

The basic Marxian question lies around
the question of the ownership and distribution
of goods… The capitalist vs the workers…

Who owns the means of production, for example…

But the real starting point is needs, desires and
urges…

How do we fulfill our needs, desires and urges…

Of which capitalism and communism, are but
two possible answers…what economic
system we should have, comes AFTER we know
or understand what our needs, desires and urges
are!

If we start with what we know to be true, then,
perhaps we can work out an economic system we
should have…

We are social beings… We cannot succeed
without each other…to have my needs, desires and
urges fulfilled, I need others…and to fulfill
your needs, desires and urges met, you also need
others, including me…

That the starting point of existence is fulfilling
our needs, desires and urges.

That is the initial starting point, not the
distribution and ownership of goods, as postulated
by Marx and Engles. What economic system comes
after we learn what our goals, needs, desires and
urges are…

So the true question of capitalism is this,
does it fulfill our goals, needs, desires and urges?

And secondly, is the cost of capitalism worth
the effort we put into it to obtain our stated
goals, needs, desires and urges? The answer
seem to me at least, is no, capitalism isn’t
worth the effort to achieve our goals, needs,
desires and urges.

We put more energy into the system
then we receive back in terms of material and
money…

And that is a waste of our time, money
and effort.

I have put in 43 years of effort/ energy into
the capitalistic system and I haven’t received
any type of return on my time/effort investment…

A serious search into the energy/ effort
we receive from capitalism tells us, it isn’t
worth the energy/ effort we put into it…

So the question becomes, what economic system
is worth our investment of energy/effort?

Kropotkin

In our day and age, there is much talk about
“platforms”. To get out the message via various platforms…
be it TV, radio, internet, media, movies…

what is left unsaid, is the content of that message…

what message are we sending over our various platforms?

Now platforms can mean something else…

for example, upon what platform are we going to build our
identity upon? How are we going to become who we are?
are we going to become or identify with the platform
of religion or nationalism or sports or conservatism?

when I want to become who I am, do I do that from
the platform of experience or ideology or some third basis?

How do I identify myself and begin my search for being human?

let us begin with one such ideology, nationalism…

the idea that we can find our true meaning in becoming part of
national identity? I am American, thus I would seek out who I am
in terms of being American…my individual and collective role
of being human would be through the ism of nationalism…

who am I? what am I to do? what should I hope for?

under the ism of nationalism, I would answer those questions
in regards to my identity of being an American…

Who am I? an American.
what am I to do? MAGA.
what should I hope for? a great America.

the profound questions of existence is woven into the accident of my
being born an American…

let us try again with religion…

who am I? what am I to do? what should I hope for?

who am I? I am a Christian waiting to be saved…
what am I to do? I am trying to reach heaven…
what should I hope for? to be save, redeemed…

your self identification, can reveal to us your platform of
how you see yourself…

now I have rejected nationalism as a platform in which to
identify ourselves and I have rejected religion as a platform
to see ourselves and I have rejected conservatism as a platform…

I have used liberalism as one such platform…

what am I to do? to engage with tolerance and equality and justice in
my dealing with other people…

who am I? someone who believes that we should treat all people
with dignity and justice and tolerance…

what should I hope for? that we become enlightened enough to
rise to the level of tolerance and decency and dignity in treating all people…

we answer the questions of existence, the Kantian/Kropotkin questions in
light of the self chosen platform that we see ourselves in…

but I don’t see liberalism as being the end all, be all of platforms in which
we engage with who we are and what are we to become…

as I have noted before, any choice of the platform of say nationalism,
means I have said, us vs them… if you are not us, you are them…

if I am an American you are not American , you are them…
if I am Christian, and you are not, you are them…
and if I choose liberalism and you are not, you are them…

the platform determines who can join our little club, be it
nationalism or religion or ideology…

I have expressly rejected the US vs THEM, understanding of the world…

there is no US vs THEM… there is only us…

so we come to the understanding that, as of right now,
our platforms are to limited, that our current platforms
do not engage enough people to be able to say, there is no them,
there is only us…

so what platform will allow me the space to include everyone?

what ideology is large enough to include everyone, regardless
of race, creed, color, nationality, sexual orientation?

a look at history can give us answer…

we began, in the beginning of time, as a small unit called
the family, quickly because it was both safer and more efficient,
to become a tribe, the a city, then a region or state then
a country…

our own self identification has grown from few, to more few, to
some to many and we include all (within our defined set of nationality or ism)
and we can then learn to increase our set, to remove subsets of men or women
or Christian or liberals within that platform… it is no longer a platform of
men or women or gays or whites or Christian, the platform include all who
exists within that platform… if I say, America, then everyone who is
an American regardless of the individual accidental traits of birth,
being born a man or a women or white or black or handicap, is included
within that platform…

if I say American, then everyone who is an American is included into
my platform…we have grown from a single family of 5 to a nation
of 330 million people in terms of identifying as part of our platform…

again, it is not large enough… we must be able to say, I am a human being,
and that will then include everyone who is human into my platform of identity…

I now identify with everyone who is human regardless of their accidental traits of birth,
of being born white or black or short or tall or handicap or man or woman…

there is no more US vs THEM in regards to human beings because
because we have erased the lines of demarcations between US vs THEM…

there is only us…

that is the goal… we can be Americans or religious or gay or woman,
it doesn’t matter what platform we self identify with individually,
we are still us…

and that is the goal…to make a platform large enough to
include all of us…

Kropotkin