"The socialist utopia would work great if the only people in it were community minded open source programmers. But those wouldn't be the only people in it. And the bullies would soon rise to the top once again. At least in the current system you have enough freedom to steer clear of most of them."
As it's said at the beginning of "The decline of the American Empire", "three things are important in history: Numbers, numbers, and numbers."
You see the 'socialist utopia' as utopic only because of the fact that today 'bullies' are pretty much common, but that will not always be the case. Mankind changes('evolves', if you like ), and changes faster than you think.
The utopy of today will be the reality of tomorrow, and elite movements like those of the 'long haired' open source programmers are just an indication of the future.
The mere fact that a 'walking satire' like GW Bush is president of the most powerful nation on earth, also indicates the same. Altough this could sound contradictory, it is not. It is just another symbol of the decadency of a society that as triumphed, and for that same reason, now fails.
A society that has achieved something. But now is the time for other achievements. New achievements, not the same old achievements. Not the 'already achieved' achievements.
"I see reality as a war zone between those who are seeking their higher selves and enlightenment, and those who are seeking their lower selves and the ultimate dissolution of the soul. I see the black hole as being the physical metaphor for self-service."
Considering the described situation as a 'war zone' is your greater mistake.
What about talking to selfish people about other ways to be?
What about talking about the benefits of not being selfish?
You can't consider yourself generous, if you don't do that. You are acting in a selfish way with what you know, and with what you could be giving.
You are, in the last sense, similar to those you despise.
You should correct that. I know you pretty well, I always read and follow your comments, and they seem emminently agreeable most of the times.
But in this point, my friend, you are dead wrong.
Best regards,
Albert
--
"Have you noted that when you write 'Best Regards' is almost like writing another ' ' tag?"
What about working as a group, but with the individuals not sacrificing themselves for the group? That's the best strategy, but it needs conscience and matureness of the majority of individuals to be achieved.
What I'm saying here, in a philosophical or 'spiritual' level, if you want, is: Individuality must not be sacrifized for the group, but increased, so their higher manifestations could emerge(conscience, and the knowledge that 'the other is me'), and so the group would start cooperating without sacrificing nobody.
Mankind is actually in that kind of 'learning', both as individuals, and as a 'group'.
I deeply agree with you.
Speaking of the game in particular, it is clear that this is an example of cooperative behaviour. These players are simply co-operating(note the term, co-operation, operation in conjunt). The fact that one of them sacrifices for the other does not change this. I wonder what the outcome would be if they don't act this way, but cooperating in the full sense of the term.
Or, as you said before, if many of them were cooperating together. The outcome would grow geometrically.
Generically speaking, is amazing how simple and clear truths, that can be seen with a little of introspection and meditation by and unprejudiced mind, are so intensely scrutinized and analyzed by so called modern 'science'. Only to come back later to the same basic truths. This time, confirmed by 'science':-)
Slashdot Mirror
"The socialist utopia would work great if the only people in it were community minded open source programmers. But those wouldn't be the only people in it. And the bullies would soon rise to the top once again. At least in the current system you have enough freedom to steer clear of most of them."
As it's said at the beginning of "The decline of the American Empire", "three things are important in history: Numbers, numbers, and numbers."
You see the 'socialist utopia' as utopic only because of the fact that today 'bullies' are pretty much common, but that will not always be the case. Mankind changes('evolves', if you like ), and changes faster than you think.
The utopy of today will be the reality of tomorrow, and elite movements like those of the 'long haired' open source programmers are just an indication of the future.
The mere fact that a 'walking satire' like GW Bush is president of the most powerful nation on earth, also indicates the same. Altough this could sound contradictory, it is not. It is just another symbol of the decadency of a society that as triumphed, and for that same reason, now fails.
A society that has achieved something. But now is the time for other achievements. New achievements, not the same old achievements. Not the 'already achieved' achievements.
Best Regards,
Albert
"I see reality as a war zone between those who are seeking their higher selves and enlightenment, and those who are seeking their lower selves and the ultimate dissolution of the soul. I see the black hole as being the physical metaphor for self-service."
Considering the described situation as a 'war zone' is your greater mistake.
What about talking to selfish people about other ways to be?
What about talking about the benefits of not being selfish?
You can't consider yourself generous, if you don't do that. You are acting in a selfish way with what you know, and with what you could be giving.
You are, in the last sense, similar to those you despise.
You should correct that. I know you pretty well, I always read and follow your comments, and they seem emminently agreeable most of the times.
But in this point, my friend, you are dead wrong.
Best regards,
Albert
--
"Have you noted that when you write 'Best Regards' is almost like writing another '
' tag?"
What about working as a group, but with the individuals not sacrificing themselves for the group? That's the best strategy, but it needs conscience and matureness of the majority of individuals to be achieved.
What I'm saying here, in a philosophical or 'spiritual' level, if you want, is: Individuality must not be sacrifized for the group, but increased, so their higher manifestations could emerge(conscience, and the knowledge that 'the other is me'), and so the group would start cooperating without sacrificing nobody.
Mankind is actually in that kind of 'learning', both as individuals, and as a 'group'.
Best regards,
Albert
I deeply agree with you. :-)
Speaking of the game in particular, it is clear that this is an example of cooperative behaviour. These players are simply co-operating(note the term, co-operation, operation in conjunt). The fact that one of them sacrifices for the other does not change this. I wonder what the outcome would be if they don't act this way, but cooperating in the full sense of the term. Or, as you said before, if many of them were cooperating together. The outcome would grow geometrically.
Generically speaking, is amazing how simple and clear truths, that can be seen with a little of introspection and meditation by and unprejudiced mind, are so intensely scrutinized and analyzed by so called modern 'science'. Only to come back later to the same basic truths. This time, confirmed by 'science'
Best regards,
Albert