|
To Tim Carpenter: If you care to look at my
posting under "philosophy" on April 2, you will find that I address the concern
you have expressed here--starting at the second paragraph. In the middle of the
exposition I observe in a one-sentence paragraph that "love of what I believe is
the plague of humanity, not its effective medication".
I agree with Jim that insufficient attention is
paid by Douglas enthusiasts to his "philosophy". I also have a notion
that Douglas' usage of the word has contributed a degree of confusion
among his enthusiasts, and that it is a deterrent to more effective spread of
his ideas for reform. I will treat the subject more extensively under
"change of pace", beginning with Wally's comments of yesterday.
Keith Wilde
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 11:33
AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] truth --
Wally comments
Dear Jim,
But you yourself say
that “I find that the philosophy of
Douglas is in complete agreement with my own personal philosophy, so I find
myself in agreement with Douglas' remedies to the accounting flaws he
discovers in his A+B theorem.”
This
is the point I am trying to make inasmuch as there is a danger (and I am not
suggesting you are in that danger!) that people can rather too easily agree
with something that appears to agree with them while both not exercising that
other enough and defending it more vigorously that would be advantageous. They
can agree too easily with Keynesian views or Communist philosophies so that
they accept teachings and mechanisms that fit their world view regardless of
if it is workable.
Tim
On 18/4/05 4:41 am, "Jim"
<jschroeder@shaw.ca> wrote:
Hi
Tim:
You
state:
"In a
way, this is somewhat worrying. If a theorem and a means to fix issues
revealed by the theorem fits ones philosophy (and by ‘fits’, I mean in a
deep, emotional way), there is a greater chance that any flaws will be
overlooked or considered aberrations to fit ones view. Opposition or
criticism of the theorem and solution be taken as a criticism of ones
personal philosophy or even as a personal attack and thus dealt with in less
than an objective way. There is also a risk that even though the raw
mathematics are sound the accepted causes may be either wrong, incomplete,
overlook the significance of some elements or overemphasise others, again,
so as to fit in ‘neatly’ with ones philosophy. There may also be a
reluctance to question any part of the canon, as it were, in case one error
brings doubt upon the entirety."
I
cannot speak on behalf of Wally, but I know you have completely
misinterpreted what I'm saying, and if I can be so bold, I think you are
misinterpreting what Wally is stating.
We're talking about remedy. There can be many
remedies to a problem. Douglas admitted the communist solution would
pretty much solve the financial problems pointed out in his A+B
theorem.
Everyone has a belief system
based on a philosophy. If you adhere to the belief that the "nation",
"class", or "race" are more important than the individual, then you will
never believe in Social Credit policy. Douglas was clear to outline
his philosophy. In fact, A+B is but a small part of Social Credit.
By stating that disagreement on philosophy leads one to agree to
disagree does not mean that ideas and theories are not to be tested by fact.
But the idea that the sovereignty of the individual is supreme is a
philosophical belief. Communists and Fascists hold contrary
beliefs.
A+B is a theorem, and has nothing
to do with a philosophy. The Social Credit policy based on the theorem
is also based on a philosophy. A+B itself is purely arithmetical, the
solution to A+B is a policy based on a philosophy.
Regards,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: Timothy Carpenter <mailto:timbeau_hk@yahoo.co.uk>
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
Sent: Sunday,
April 17, 2005 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] truth --
Wally comments
Hi Jim, Wally and all.
In a way, this is
somewhat worrying. If a theorem and a means to fix issues revealed by the
theorem fits ones philosophy (and by ‘fits’, I mean in a deep, emotional
way), there is a greater chance that any flaws will be overlooked or
considered aberrations to fit ones view. Opposition or criticism of the
theorem and solution be taken as a criticism of ones personal philosophy
or even as a personal attack and thus dealt with in less than an objective
way. There is also a risk that even though the raw mathematics are sound
the accepted causes may be either wrong, incomplete, overlook the
significance of some elements or overemphasise others, again, so as to fit
in ‘neatly’ with ones philosophy. There may also be a reluctance to
question any part of the canon, as it were, in case one error brings doubt
upon the entirety.
Tim
On 16/4/05 8:40 pm, "Jim"
<jschroeder@shaw.ca> wrote:
Thank you for you lucid
response Wally. You definitely understand my position fully.
Social Credit is much more than the A+B theorem.
It is a policy of a philosophy.
Douglas
said:
"It is something based on what you profoundly
believe - what at any rate, I profoundly believe, and hope you will - to
be a portion of reality. It is probably a very small portion, but we
have glimpsed a. portion of reality, and that conception of reality is a
philosophy, and the action that we take based upon that conception is a
policy, and that policy is Social Credit.
It is in fact a policy
based upon a philosophy, which is, incidentally, why, in many cases, it
is no use arguing with many people about the techniques of Social
Credit, because they don't agree with your philosophy; often they don't
even understand it, and, therefore, what you say in regard to policy and
techniques sounds like a loud noise to them, chiefly without any sense;
and the best thing to do in the circumstances is, of course, to agree to
differ"
http://www.alor.org/Library/Policyofaphilosophy.htm#1a
Why Social
Credit has been perverted into a monetary reform scheme is that there is
a difference of opinion as to philosophy, not a difference of opinion
over the A+B theorem itself. Douglas openly admitted that
communism would virtually solve the problems identified in his A+B
theorem when questioned in this regard by Keynes before the Macmillan
Commission:
4479. Mr. Keynes: If all firms were united in a single
firm would your difficulties be overcome?
Douglas: That is the obvious remedy for the financial
difficulty but not necessarily the right remedy. Even from a purely
financial standpoint it is a little difficult to say; you understand a
time lag comes in.
Douglas states it would be the obvious remedy for the
financial difficulty, but not necessarily the right remedy. Why?
Because it's based on a philosophy which is contrary to Social
Credit philosophy. Like you state Wally, to Douglas, the
individual is the primary factor in a Social Credit society. This
is based on a philosophy, and not based on Douglas' A+B theorem.
Douglas also stated that there was no use discussing remedy if
there was no agreement on philosophy for you might as well be speaking
Greek to the other person, and in that case you simply agree to
disagree.
I find that the philosophy of Douglas is in
complete agreement with my own personal philosophy, so I find myself in
agreement with Douglas' remedies to the accounting flaws he discovers in
his A+B theorem. I think the philosophical differences between
remedies need to be made quite clear. And Douglas, who
coined the term Social Credit, made his philosophy quite clear in this
matter.
Wally, you stated:
"Insofar as
Douglas was concerned he stated that he believed Social Credit cast
light on a limited, but critical, aspect of truth and would open the
path to the revelation, over time, of much more of the truth. He
clearly said that we do not know the final end of mankind but that in
his view it could most successfully be pursued and approached only by
free expansion of the human personality. "
I could not have
stated this better myself, so I will use your statement as the my
closing thoughts on this issue.
Have a great day,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: Wallace M. Klinck <mailto:wmklinck@shaw.ca>
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
Sent:
Saturday, April 16, 2005 1:47 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit]
truth -- Wally comments
Jim, I think you have a very positive attitude and am in
considerable aggreement with your stated position, as I understand
it.
We are not God or gods but only mortals and
can, therefore, only encompass with our intellects limited aspects of
truth which is infinitely greater than ourselves. As created
beings, we can only understand in a limited way the nature and purpose
of the Maker whatever this may mean. For this reason, humility
behoves us all.
Insofar as
Douglas was concerned he stated that he believed Social Credit cast
light on a limited, but critical, aspect of truth and would open the
path to the revelation, over time, of much more of the truth. He
clearly said that we do not know the final end of mankind but that in
his view it could most successfully be pursued and approached only by
free expansion of the human personality. He stated that this
could best be accomplished in an environment where individual security
is maximized and the policy of Social Credit is to create conditions
which will achieve this state. Social Credit views the existing
financial financial system as the primary incarnation and expression
of the policy of a philosophy which is the major impediment to the
realization of individual security and of the natural and proper
development of the human personality.
We all have to
go on faith and if we are honest we are willing to test the validity
of our faith by the results obtained in practical exercise or
application of that faith. This is living the "truth" now; for
us, there is only one moment of time, i.e., the present. Living
a spirtual and physical existence, we must formulate definitive
policies to the best of our ability and attempt to execute these
policies in a disciplined and directed manner in the real world.
If we appear to err, then is the time to revisit our basic
assumptions and/or the appropriateness of the policies formulated.
In this way we live reality every day and have a continuing
opportunity to modify our beliefs and actions in response to the
apparent consequences of these beliefs and actions. We must
think and we must act, and respond both honestly and realistically to
the practical consequences which follow our thought and
actions.
Without faith we cannot do anything, but the
nature of our faith is subject to change as we proceed through our
existence and interact with the universe around us. Only a
correct relationship with our physical and social environment can make
us increasingly free and this requires a constant seeking of truth
through, I believe, received inspiration combined with honest
experimentation. Truth, indeed, has everything to do with Social
Credit, defined as the ability of humans in association to generate
increments of association which redound to individual satisfaction and
well-being. Falsehood and error can only lead to decrements in
human well-being. "The Truth will make you Free." We do
not harvest figs from thistles.
While we
should always earnestly seek the truth, we must never arrogate to
ourselves the whole of it--nor should we reject anyone else's opinion
to enhance our own egos, nor should we make uncritical adherence to
preconceived ideas the basis of our personal pychological and/or
emotional security.
Nevertheless,
we do have a moral responsibility and practical need to mobilize the
resources which we have toward realization of the general good--and we
have the intellectual and ethical task to maximize that good in the
most effective and efficient manner possible. This sometimes
unavoidably involves preventing lack of comprehension or possible
active mischief on the part of others intended to impede progress in
implementation of our honestly considered chosen policies. If we
come into conflict or impasse with others then I believe that we
should always remain civil in our relationships in the interests of
love for others--and because this most often generates a response in
kind. At base level, everyone wants to be respected and they
usually respond positively when they perceive that others can respect
them while yet disagreeing with them.
Demonstration
of cvility and genuine respect does not mean, however, neglecting to
express the truth in a direct and clear manner as we understand it to
be. While patience should always be regarded as a virtue, if
lack of good faith clearly seems to be encountered, as unfortunately
will occasionally happen, in some cases--then surely it is best to
shake the dust from one's heals and move on without animus to what may
be more fertile ground. Our central purpose is to contribute to
the achievement of that which is good. The best way to
accomplish this would seem to be dedication of our resources to the
most likely fertile fields of thought and action. We cannot
morally avoid the making of decisions, principled in the light of
knowledged currently possessed, but flexible in the light of new
knowledge acquired. They should be made in the most genuinely
considered manner so that we may be able to live in good conscience
with them, and respond with honesty and realism to the consequences of
them.
These are just a few of my opinions and
thoughts on the matter.
Sincerely
Wally
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim <mailto:jschroeder@shaw.ca>
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
Sent:
Friday, April 15, 2005 1:07 PM
Subject: [socialcredit]
truth
I have watched the
conversations in this list, and I must say that the intelligence
displayed is in most instances extraordinary. However;
what is being said is in most instances overshadowed by the
ego of the person making the statement. I want to get into a
brief discussion on Truth, and even though it's not directly related
to Social Credit, if the moderator on the list will humour me, I can
demonstrate how it is applicable to what we are talking
about.
"Whether truth is defined more empirically, as the
conformity of thought and being, or more idealistically, as the
conformity of being with thought, it is, in either case, important
carefully to note what is meant by being. And in formulating
the answer to this question it is likewise important to take heed
lest the knowing spirit be tricked into losing itself in the
indeterminate, so that it fantastically becomes a something that no
existing human being ever was or can be, a sort of phantom with
which the individual occupies himself upon occasion, but without
making it clear to himself in terms of dialectical intermediaries
how he happens to get into this fantastic realm, what significance
being there has for him, and whether the entire activity that goes
on out there does not resolve itself into a tautology within a
recklessly fantastic venture of thought.
If being, in the two indicated definitions, is
understood as empirical being, truth is at once transformed into a
desideratum, and everything must be understood in terms of becoming;
for the empirical object is unfinished and the existing cognitive
spirit is itself in process of becoming. Thus the
truth becomes an approximation whose beginning cannot be posited
absolutely, precisely because the conclusion is lacking, the effect
of which is retroactive. Whenever a beginning is made,
on the other hand, unless through being unaware of this the
procedure stamps itself as arbitrary, such a beginning is not the
consequence of an immanent movement of thought, but is effected
through a resolution of the will, essentially in the strength of
faith. That the knowing spirit is an existing individual
spirit, and that every human being is such an entity existing for
himself, is a truth I cannot too often repeat; for the fantastic
neglect of this is responsible for much confusion. Let no one
misunderstand me. I happen to be a poor existing spirit like
all other men; but if becoming something extraordinary, like the
pure I-am-I for example, I always stand ready gratefully to accept
the gift and the benefaction." (Soren Kierkegaard: Concluding
Unscientific Postscript)
The truth is not known, the
truth is lived. And everyone must take a different path.
Douglas, for as smart as he was, never knew the truth.
And from what I read of him, he would be the first to admit
it. However; that does not mean that the term "Social Credit"
should not apply to his thoughts. Otherwise, the term itself
becomes meaningless. Douglas will never be the last word, but
from what I've read, his word is definitely worth reading and
understanding.
I'm
not an expert on Social Credit, nor do I claim to be. However;
in spite of the vast array of knowledge displayed on this list, the
only person I consider to be an expert on Social Credit was Douglas
himself.
I think instead of everyone getting their
ego defences up, and resorting to ad-hominems, and discussions about
who's done more with their lives, we should be discussing how we are
to implement these ideas, and trying to teach those with less
knowledge in earnestness. For no matter how smart you think you are,
there's always someone smarter, and no matter how much you think
you've done, there's always someone who's done
more.
I think we can an honest exchange of ideas
without the other nonsense that seems to accompany it. There
is always contradiction present in any statement, and no matter
which theory we are discussing, in the end it's only a theory - even
if it's Douglas' theory. Words are merely an
abstraction.
Immediacy is reality; language is ideality,
consciousness is a contradiction. The moment I make a
statement about reality, contradiction is present, for what I say is
ideality.
The possibility of
doubt, then, lies in consciousness, whose nature is a contradiction
that is produced by a duplexity and that itself produces a
duplexity." ( Soren Kierkegaard :Philosophical
Fragments)
Let's
respect one another in our search for the truth. Douglas and
Social Credit are merely a step in the
journey.
And I thank you all for the opportunity to
learn.
Sincerely,
Jim
Schroeder
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You're
subscribed to this list with the email wmklinck@shaw.ca
To
unsubscribe, send a message
to
socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
For more information,
visit
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You're
subscribed to this list with the email jschroeder@shaw.ca
To
unsubscribe, send a message
to
socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
For more information,
visit
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You're
subscribed to this list with the email timbeau_hk@yahoo.co.uk
To
unsubscribe, send a message
to
socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
For more information,
visit
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You're
subscribed to this list with the email jschroeder@shaw.ca
To
unsubscribe, send a message
to
socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
For more information, visit
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You're
subscribed to this list with the email timbeau_hk@yahoo.co.uk
To
unsubscribe, send a message
to
socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
For more information, visit
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You're subscribed to this list with the email keithwilde@sympatico.ca
To unsubscribe, send a message to
socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
