|
Message 972
|
|
< Previous | Next >
|
|
|
| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] truth -- Wally comments | | Date: | Monday, April 18, 2005 16:33:34 (+0100) | | From: | Timothy Carpenter <timbeau_hk @........uk>
|
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
|
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message