DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Dyslermergerb** · 08-10-2008, 05:55 PM

sperry, the man that discovered the specialization of the left and right brain said the following when giving his nobel prize speech in the 1980's, "our social values are determined by what we believe the nature of consciousness to be.... whether consciousness is bound to the brain and can die, if it is universal, reincarnated or whatever......" his thinking is actually an understatement. the contents of our entire mental map are determined, consciously or unconsciously by how we perceive the nature of consciousness to be. this includes our perceptions of: mission, identity, values, abilities, possibilities, boundaries, responsibilities, morals, behavior and how we relate to our selves', each other and the rest of the universe.

everybody here that has experienced the difference between a strong childhood belief/religion and a spiritual awakening has felt this difference it makes in our mental maps.

this is a prime question that affects personality and behavior. any project that attempts to mold mankind into any attitude, environment, political direction etc. will fail as long as the question of consciousness is not properly addressed.

an example of this is how communism failed when it was forced on to people of differing beliefs. the same idea actually could work well with spiritually awakened and positive polarized people - sharing instead of fighting each other.

the reason there is so much social chaos in the world today is because of the disconnect between religious beliefs and scientific attitudes which all are more or less wrong.

the venus project, even though it is a good idea, cannot work in a 3d world full of duality and diverse understandings of consciousness. its like putting the carriage before the horse. it is a systemic mistake.

i think jacques addresses exactly what you are talking about when he talks about "establishment vs. society". he says the very nature of being part of an "establishment" is inherently flawed in that it tries to conserve the established system and it doesn't allow for growth and change. a healthy society would be allowed to grow, change and evolve as well as people's individual evolution would be encouraged. because it is the only healthy way to be. he says this will be a part of his vision.

so he is not forcing anyone to do anything at all.

well the real gem of knowledge i gleaned from [that excellent documentary - do we really have to censor the proper names of things? seems silly to me...] is that in our current economy, profit is in direct conflict with efficiency, sustainability and abundance. i had discovered this in the past few years, but was unable to put it so beautifully.

the way i understand a resource-based economy is that instead of money having inherent value we transfer this to resources. thus, anything that degrades or destroys the resource in essence destroys its value - not good. in this perspective, a "cradle-to-cradle" approach for resources means that you receive maximum (really - approaching infinite) value out of it by ensuring the quality of the resource over an indefinite amount of time. first off, this ensures that sustainability is prioritized - leaving the resource (even when it's used), in a usable form for our descendants (and if possible, improving its quality!). sustainability is inextricably linked to efficiency and abundance, which can only increase in a society that is sworn to protect the value of earth's natural gifts to mankind.

the great thing about complementary currencies is that they present us with a much better option for a smooth transition to a resource-based economy. the key to this system is in the concept of demurrage, which effectively translates into negative interest. instead of people that hoard money *cough*monstrousinternationalbanks*cough* being rewarded, money actually devalues the longer it is held onto. one relative example is that rather than it being beneficial for you to be holding $1000, in this system it would be much better for you to have 10 people owe you $100 (which won't devalue), or just spending it on whatever and borrowing if you need to. with that money you've spent or lent, you've created business and the initial investment snowballs from there. with everyone spending and lending in this way, business is a natural by-product of having money, instead of being stifled by the 'need' to hold onto it so preciously (and every investment thus becomes collective, rather than needing to limit investments to yourself/your company). it becomes plain to see that this model transitions much easier than our current practice, since the money can actually lend its own value on resources and ideas like sustainability, efficiency, and abundance.

that "monstrousinternationalbanks" comment was pretty funny, i must say. :d ok, i do understand what you are saying about the concept of demmurage and that your money devalues the longer you hold on to it so you are better off putting that money to work. but i still don't get how an economy can be based solely off of resources. i mean, how does that work? like a barter system? i understand that in jacques' vision there will be very little work to do because of the advancement of technology. so will people actually earn anything for the little work that needs to be done? will people simply take turns doing the work and no one actually earns anything? everything would simply be available so people will be free to follow their hearts' desires? i suppose the work will just be divvied up among people equally.

08-10-2008, 05:55 PM	#8
Dyslermergerb Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 510 Senior Member	sperry, the man that discovered the specialization of the left and right brain said the following when giving his nobel prize speech in the 1980's, "our social values are determined by what we believe the nature of consciousness to be.... whether consciousness is bound to the brain and can die, if it is universal, reincarnated or whatever......" his thinking is actually an understatement. the contents of our entire mental map are determined, consciously or unconsciously by how we perceive the nature of consciousness to be. this includes our perceptions of: mission, identity, values, abilities, possibilities, boundaries, responsibilities, morals, behavior and how we relate to our selves', each other and the rest of the universe. everybody here that has experienced the difference between a strong childhood belief/religion and a spiritual awakening has felt this difference it makes in our mental maps. this is a prime question that affects personality and behavior. any project that attempts to mold mankind into any attitude, environment, political direction etc. will fail as long as the question of consciousness is not properly addressed. an example of this is how communism failed when it was forced on to people of differing beliefs. the same idea actually could work well with spiritually awakened and positive polarized people - sharing instead of fighting each other. the reason there is so much social chaos in the world today is because of the disconnect between religious beliefs and scientific attitudes which all are more or less wrong. the venus project, even though it is a good idea, cannot work in a 3d world full of duality and diverse understandings of consciousness. its like putting the carriage before the horse. it is a systemic mistake. i think jacques addresses exactly what you are talking about when he talks about "establishment vs. society". he says the very nature of being part of an "establishment" is inherently flawed in that it tries to conserve the established system and it doesn't allow for growth and change. a healthy society would be allowed to grow, change and evolve as well as people's individual evolution would be encouraged. because it is the only healthy way to be. he says this will be a part of his vision. so he is not forcing anyone to do anything at all. well the real gem of knowledge i gleaned from [that excellent documentary - do we really have to censor the proper names of things? seems silly to me...] is that in our current economy, profit is in direct conflict with efficiency, sustainability and abundance. i had discovered this in the past few years, but was unable to put it so beautifully. the way i understand a resource-based economy is that instead of money having inherent value we transfer this to resources. thus, anything that degrades or destroys the resource in essence destroys its value - not good. in this perspective, a "cradle-to-cradle" approach for resources means that you receive maximum (really - approaching infinite) value out of it by ensuring the quality of the resource over an indefinite amount of time. first off, this ensures that sustainability is prioritized - leaving the resource (even when it's used), in a usable form for our descendants (and if possible, improving its quality!). sustainability is inextricably linked to efficiency and abundance, which can only increase in a society that is sworn to protect the value of earth's natural gifts to mankind. the great thing about complementary currencies is that they present us with a much better option for a smooth transition to a resource-based economy. the key to this system is in the concept of demurrage, which effectively translates into negative interest. instead of people that hoard money **coughmonstrousinternationalbankscough** being rewarded, money actually devalues the longer it is held onto. one relative example is that rather than it being beneficial for you to be holding $1000, in this system it would be much better for you to have 10 people owe you $100 (which won't devalue), or just spending it on whatever and borrowing if you need to. with that money you've spent or lent, you've created business and the initial investment snowballs from there. with everyone spending and lending in this way, business is a natural by-product of having money, instead of being stifled by the 'need' to hold onto it so preciously (and every investment thus becomes collective, rather than needing to limit investments to yourself/your company). it becomes plain to see that this model transitions much easier than our current practice, since the money can actually lend its own value on resources and ideas like sustainability, efficiency, and abundance. that "monstrousinternationalbanks" comment was pretty funny, i must say. :d ok, i do understand what you are saying about the concept of demmurage and that your money devalues the longer you hold on to it so you are better off putting that money to work. but i still don't get how an economy can be based solely off of resources. i mean, how does that work? like a barter system? i understand that in jacques' vision there will be very little work to do because of the advancement of technology. so will people actually earn anything for the little work that needs to be done? will people simply take turns doing the work and no one actually earns anything? everything would simply be available so people will be free to follow their hearts' desires? i suppose the work will just be divvied up among people equally.
	Quote