Slashdot Mirror

good post... hope someone moderates it up.

also on technology.

technology makes it so one can do more with less. so what we are seeing is that we dont need all of the population employed. yet, everyone thinks that unemployment is a bad thing. so what we need is some means for people to receive necessities of live. this "problem" so far hasnt been solved... and it keep coming up. ie "how will programers eat if software is free?", "how will the economical underclassed eat if they can't do any 'work'?"

does anyone else see the similarity? that the march of technology, will change everything? that our money system can't coup with unlimited suplus? that draging our feet and anvoiding the problem doesnt help?

for more on the quest for a 'fix' read RAW's illuminati papers. ( wish i had the time to write more but work calls... )


nmarshall
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE

Once more if you're clean, Uncle Sam leaves you alone.

hmmm, history clearly shows us that this is false. ie:
dr. tim leary 20+ for telling uncle sam facts about lsd the good old uncle didnt like. most of that time was in solitary.
dr. wilhelm reich died in prison cause the AMA did like some of his various theories. they then burned his books...

o' i guess when you say "if your're clean" you mean that you dont talk about anything that you beleve in that doesnt "fit in" with what uncle sam thinks...

which leds us to SNAFU. (SNAFU: Situation Normal All Fucked Up )
for more of an explation (i dont have time and the space) read some of RAW's books...


nmarshall
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE

there is a lot to anarchism. ie righthanded and lefthanded, then there is the crasies..
read Illuminatus! by bob wilson to get an understanding of anarchism...

and there are no contradictions just perceptions...

nmarshall
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE

While I haven't read this book yet, I suspect that its subject matter runs in close parallel with Fritjof Capra's The Tao of Physics which attempts to demonstrate the alarming similarities between the conclusions of modern theoretical physics, and Eastern (and other) mysticism. I would highly recommend this book to anyone looking for an interesting read.

From the brief skimming I have done of the other comments posted so far in this discussion, I can see that most of them embody the same knee-jerk reaction that die hard science-types (such as myself) tend to have when non-scientific possibilities are even mentioned.

Anyone who believes that science and mathematics are the answer to everything, and can possibly describe the totality of existance should do some reading on Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, Alfred Korzybski's (sp?) General Semantics, and contemplate the implications of a set containing itself (a theory [a member of the set of "real" things, "Reality"] describing the "reality" [set] that contains it, FNORD).

The important thing to stress is that science, mysticism, philosophy, etc. are only models of the "reality" we observe. We too often mistake our models of reality for that which they describe. This misperception has been described as "The map is not the territory," or "The menu is not the meal."

The similarities between the conclusions of modern physics and those of ancient mysticism (and those of acid-heads) are too numerous and large to ignore. Two seemingly diametrically opposite methods of modeling reality have come to extremely similar conclusions. These include observer created reality, the illusion of indivisible particles, the interconnectedness of all existance, etc. etc. etc. I'll let you do the reading so as not to come off sounding like some new-age lunatic ;) The point being that we shouldn't be looking to pick sides on the issue, but to back up and see that they're both sides of the same coin.

R. Buckminster Fuller (imho, one of the greatest thinking minds of the century) once decided to test one of the theories of General Semantics, that we continually 'hypnotize' ourselves with our speech, by not talking for a full year. When he started talking again, he had a completely new way of modelling reality (and created some very interesting geometric shapes that seem to be 3 dimensional projections of 4th dimensional gemoetries). His patterns of speech also changed radically, for example he refused to say "the universe" and instead insisted on saying simply "universe" to emphasize that what he was referring to was a process, not a thing, as the language leads us to think of it. He also said "I seem to be a verb," and "God is a verb," which have thoroughly confused and enlightened many people since.

I'll conclude before I get too far off on a tangent, and encourage you to at least do some reasearch on the similarities here. There's a wealth of information out there on the 'net, and in print. I would highly recommend The Tao of Physics, Godel, Escher, Bach, and Robert Anton Wilson's Prometheus Rising.

-Anthony DiMarco
"If you don't see the FNORD it can't eat you. Dont' see the FNORD. Don't see the FNORD."

first this is wilson's site.
and for more on R. Buckminster Fuller
also bob wilson's The Illuminati Papers explains Quantum physics, etc in easy to digest terms...
PBS.org has some info. on bucky. ( try seaching for "Buckminster Fuller" )
wish i had more time to write but i should be working...

nmarshall
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE