Courtney Brown, The Future of Scientific Remote Viewing |421|

So you think there's a consensus (in heaven maybe?) that I am evil? Well bless your heart. See? You're already more than equally receiving of the bounty of life. By virtue of you superior spirituality you have been appointed by the highest of highs as the judge of all morality. Please forgive a poor sinner like me. I'm just a wayward soul trying to find my way home. Please teach me more.
I'm not from heaven, so i wouldn't know. You're not evil, just drop your gun, you don't need it here
You're forgiven, love this phrase
I'm just a wayward soul trying to find my way home.
aren't we all
Sure, if you don't mind getting it from a bad-old, part-faery, foul-mouthed bohemian bitch...
 
A big mistake that people of the socialist persuasion make when they discuss their perception of unequal distribution of money is the assumption that an economy has a finite amount of money such that if someone has more then there is less for others.

Money reflects value created and value saved. The amount of money in a society is not finite. More money is created as more value is created. If you don't have sufficient money, it is because you're not creating sufficient value.
But back when socialism had its birth things were different. Now what we call money is generated as banks are inclined. We can't compare the different periods. The concept of social justice concerning the fair distribution of a restricted resource is not the same argument to apply when banks have the power to create wealth untethered to any controlling standard.

Now there might be an infinite supply of money in a theoretical sense, but access to it is still controlled. So we move from questions of what is available to who has access. The result is the same. The minority's has access to the most.
 
n my 30 years of doing strategy, I have found money to be a flashlight into one's soul, the soul of an organization, and the soul of a nation - both for self and for others to see, and not merely a bribe nor threat, as you frame it. Money itself is neutral. Inside the face of money you see revealed the heart of mankind, or even a man, not the essence of money - and it is easy to conflate the two as one thing.
TES, I love this statement. What we call money is the medium of exchange of energy and value. There was a time when barter worked. But in a complex culture barter cannot work. I am a public servant. I have skills and value, but when I go to my local favourite restaurant they have no match with their immediate needs to my capacity to generate value. Its far easier to have a token that abstracts value and energy and can be interchanged.

Imagine we tried to pay our taxes with sheep, chooks, cauliflowers and plums. The cost of administering the management of the receipts would outweigh their value. Money is good. It gets rid of a whole heap of problems that are fundamental to complex cultures.

You are so right. Money has a neutral moral valency. It does reveal 'the heart of mankind' because the desire to interact and interchange is fundamental to who we are. Its just a pity that this medium of exchange has been, so nearly all the others, been taken over by criminals and/or idiots.
 
I'm just a wayward soul trying to find my way home. Please teach me more.
Eric, we are not wayward. There is a difference in a doctrine that preaches redemption from sin and one that espouses aspiration to potential.Theb original notion of 'sin' is 'missing the mark'. If you are learning to use a rifle you will miss the target until to develop the technique that enables you to do your best. Sinning is not a failure of anything other than method or technique - ignorance.

Christianity developed the idea of sin to be something that was a moral failing that had to be managed by people who rape children. It is in fact no more than an idea of asking sincerely how we can do better. Saying "I am a sinner" is saying "teach me how to shoot straight." The divine will do that without guilt tripping you."

We are all sinners - we all miss the target we are aiming for - and we can all learn to shoot straighter. That's the function of spiritual evolution.
 
I saw a show once wherein Eskimos were interviewed. They were asked what they would do with a non-productive member of their society who just caused trouble. The answer was that they'd probably push him off an ice flow.
And yet there is evidence [dont ask me to quote it because it was ages ago I came across it with no motive to preserve it] that our far distant ancestors were deeply caring of community members, including those crippled or otherwise disabled. The key in your comment is "caused trouble". If we are thinking recalcitrant characters we would lock up, we have to imagine that in some cultures that is not an option, given their environmental circumstances - Arctic or desert for eg.

Given that the US is not exactly ill disposed to a death sentence you have to figure that in a given situation terminating an incarnation is the best option for all. Death is not the end for the person in any case.

How is this different to a wounded soldier impeding the survival of his team? His 'sacrifice' may ensure the survival of others. Pushing a person off an ice floe does not have to be done with any sentiment that is not a deep sense of sad necessity. This one crazy guy endangers a whole community. The US, by comparison kills poeple who merely piss them off. Tell me an instance of a single murderer who constitutes a threat to a whole community.
 
And yet there is evidence [dont ask me to quote it because it was ages ago I came across it with no motive to preserve it] that our far distant ancestors were deeply caring of community members, including those crippled or otherwise disabled. The key in your comment is "caused trouble". If we are thinking recalcitrant characters we would lock up, we have to imagine that in some cultures that is not an option, given their environmental circumstances - Arctic or desert for eg.

Given that the US is not exactly ill disposed to a death sentence you have to figure that in a given situation terminating an incarnation is the best option for all. Death is not the end for the person in any case.

How is this different to a wounded soldier impeding the survival of his team? His 'sacrifice' may ensure the survival of others. Pushing a person off an ice floe does not have to be done with any sentiment that is not a deep sense of sad necessity. This one crazy guy endangers a whole community. The US, by comparison kills poeple who merely piss them off. Tell me an instance of a single murderer who constitutes a threat to a whole community.
I think the type of bad actor Eskimo in question should be pushed off the ice flow. I just figured that Alice would not agree with that practice. Most modern liberals would be deeply opposed to such a practice.
 
I think the type of bad actor Eskimo in question should be pushed off the ice flow. I just figured that Alice would not agree with that practice. Most modern liberals would be deeply opposed to such a practice.
But the difference between then and now suggests that opposing what what was done then makes sense now. That's why we don't stone disobedient teenagers or wives who have it away with those who are not their husbands (but not vice versa). Remember the OT verse that says that a witch should not live? We don't now kill witches.
 
Given that the US is not exactly ill disposed to a death sentence you have to figure that in a given situation terminating an incarnation is the best option for all. Death is not the end for the person in any case.
It seems it may deprive a person of the ability to engage in introspection for their behavior within their more limited earthly form. There are too many invisible layers, so I hesitate to say the death penalty would be desirable under a society that accepts reincarnation.
 
Even the Eskimos recognize the more capable. Such people get more and better mates, have more and better homes, have more and better food and more status generally. They get to make the decisions as chiefs, members of the tribal council, etc.

The real decision here is what to do with those who can't cut it given the requirements of modern life. The decision is further complicated due the those who are unable to cut it being able to understand what is going on.
I think the type of bad actor Eskimo in question should be pushed off the ice flow.
They might have been joking.
Putting these two quotes together does worry me. Define "better"
So who is to decide who gets eliminated? You?
Actually there are people who I think the human race would be better off without, but I'm sure we wouldn't agree on who.
It is a dangerous maxim because there is potential for irrational cruelty in a group of people who thereby enjoy a temporary sense of belonging to the crowd and condemning 'the different one'. Can you imagine if you were the one everyone wanted to push off the ice floe? Is it reasonable then?
 
It seems it may deprive a person of the ability to engage in introspection for their behavior within their more limited earthly form. There are too many invisible layers, so I hesitate to say the death penalty would be desirable under a society that accepts reincarnation.
I agree. I am no fan or advocate of the death penalty. But I do appreciate that there are circumstances where confining a person to give them the opportunity to reflect on their actions is not always available - and death might be the kinder of the available options. The point is that if you believe in reincarnation the intent of a death penalty must be qualitatively different to alternative beliefs.
 
I agree. I am no fan or advocate of the death penalty. But I do appreciate that there are circumstances where confining a person to give them the opportunity to reflect on their actions is not always available - and death might be the kinder of the available options. The point is that if you believe in reincarnation the intent of a death penalty must be qualitatively different to alternative beliefs.
There is an African (indigenous) tribe (ditto - I also read it in an anthropology book years ago) whose penalty for the one who commits a heinous crime like murder, is for them to live alone with the Shaman for some months.
Show me one prison in our modern society that provides one on one therapy like that. They've hardly got as far as offering meditation practice. We don't value introspection in the mainstream of our culture (that's for liberal hippies etc Eric?)
It is sophistical (and new age in fact) to say, well we can reincarnate anyway (were you saying that?) without allowing a person the option to live out this life and all they have to learn, by choosing death for them, whether sanctioned by institutional policy or not.
 
People like the producer's movies. So lots of people pay money to see them. Any dope can mop floors. As a result, we don't pay much for that.
The thing about this estimation of the difference between the mop-wielder and the movie-producer, is that it is a judgement evaluation in terms of what they do, while I see it that each is contributing an hour (or more) of their time and that is what should be regarded as of equal value. If everyone's time is of value to them, why not to each other?

And while I too love movies, ask yourself, which performs what is actually the more essential - the creation of temporarily-escapist fabulous fantasy or the provision of a clean and ordered environment? If people didn't clean, collect rubbish and maintain our world, you'd soon know about it. But a movie is always (ok sometimes educational) just glamour.
 
Last edited:
The thing about this estimation of the difference between the mop-wielder and the movie-producer, is that it is a judgement evaluation in terms of what they do, while I see it that each is contributing an hour (or more) of their time and that is what should be regarded as of equal value. If everyone's time is of value to them, why not to each other?

And while I too love movies, ask yourself, which performs what is actually the more essential - the creation of temporarily-escapist fabulous fantasy or the provision of a clean and ordered environment? If people didn't clean, collect rubbish and maintain our world, you'd soon know about it. But a movie is always (ok sometimes educational) just glamour.
And then there's that old joke about the body parts arguing about which was most important (you can add whatever flourishes you like here) - until the asshole said it was going to close down.....
 
Top