second question:
what would you do with a thousand times that amount.
this leap is strange.
I think it pertains to deep psyche.
The debts/depths of Hades.
How much one can own in ones mind.
Our collective psyche is completely muddled and frayed, along with being hyper charged. We have no astral temple, no form in which the sum of us is greater than we are; no sign. No ritual, no pattern.
We need to think bigger, not smaller than our evil colonialist predecessors.
I mean bigger. More bigly.
I’d just buy the Congress to amend the constitution to create a co-op economy (how I define it (not Wikipedia).
I’d also buy out Congress to rewrite the voting laws to make sure the US can’t hack its own elections.
I’d also buy out Congress to create multiple community access stations in each demographic area.
And then I’d be broke.
But I’d be happier.
Ok so you’d be the ultimate corrupt lobbyist, buying up the country do have it do your bidding.
I think that is a standard approach man. I think that is exactly the sort of power that has bought congress now.
And indeed - this is precisely what I meant to suggest. If given infinite money, most would turn into tyrants.
Most are very convinced their own ideas are the best for everyone, also for those who don’t like these ideas. Very few actually respect the idea of a “will of the People”.
I’d go broke making this country a democracy. Money is all that talks in Congress.
The elites shudder in fear that people’s votes count! You can buy out that fear!
I’m a realist.
Alright alright.
Just checking.
I need to tell you why agenda 3 is equally important!
Without public access television we have no possibility of bringing outside views.
I believe in the people. I mean… kinda… most have been so indoctrinated by propaganda they don’t even know what cereal to eat unless someone tells them.
I trust public access to coddle people through really difficult discussions in funny ways.
All the money in the world couldn’t fix “other people”.
To that end, all the money in the world couldn’t fix “me” to no longer find “other people” to be a problem that needs fixing, even if I wanted to be fixed in such a way, and I don’t want to be different to how I am.
And I’m not even sure it would be better if it were possible to fix people - their deepest flaws are their greatest strengths, and they continue to be selected for due to their success. Ultimately it’s all just an irrational fight against entropy, so whyever would I expect rationality anyway - except in that way that it’s commonly used, to mean improving things for yourself relative to others even at the expense of better overall strategies for everyone including yourself.
I can only think I’d put enough into funding an all expenses paid solitary and free life for myself to continue to futilely ponder measures to make things better, and to give the rest away in some way or other that temporarily corrects for inequities before it quickly runs out and everything goes back to how it always was and always will be.
Large amounts of money are for people who want to socially compete with other people with large amounts of money, to try and at least maintain their relative standing but preferably to gain more than their competition, especially if it disrupts the plans of others to do the same in return.
That is of less than zero interest to me.
Money will always flow back to the people who are interested in such nonsense, meaning nonsense will always rise to power and prominence, and thus inequities will always be rife around the world to the detriment of all.
Silhouette,
You can’t fix zero sum realities (within the context of a zero sum reality) the metaphor here is literally, you need to think and understand ‘outside the box’. People run in circles inside that box, maybe even the cave of Plato. You can only make them slightly better. They’re broken as broken possibly gets.
Conflict is a fundamental feature of any physical system… but here’s the thing… we are already anthropomorphizing here. We characterize a certain change in a physical body that results in some dissonance - physical or conceptual discomfort (bad thoughts, etc.) - we experience as as effect, and link the idea of conflict with that change and that effect. But the cause(s) does not have as its intention to bring about that effect; the experience of the conflict is solely the creation of the experiencer. Of course there must be a corresponding change in the body which precedes the idea, but neither the environment nor the body itself intends to produce conflict. That’s a judgement, an anthropomorphism, a brief feeling and idea a little creature called man once had when he did his metaphysics to explain, justify and excuse his suffering. Like the ecmandusattva he said ‘this world is painful, therefore it is bad’.
Once you understand what your boy spinz wuz sayin when he was talking about the secondary nature of the emotional judgement and how it can only lead to inadequate knowledge of causality - this we do, we ‘blame’ or pass judgement on becoming (N) - when we experience suffering and want to charge the cause with criminal intent… be it a person, a vengeful god or an indifferent universe… somebody or something meant for me to suffer… and I’m like naw fuck that.
And dont start in on me with the dimensions and spirit worlds and all that other shit either. You know i’ont believe that nonsense.