Vanity and the Absolute or Eternal/Infinite I

[MikeF]

That's the lie that the capitalists have been telling, for sure, but it is a lie. Competition just wastes huge amounts of time and resources on duplication. There is no logical reason why cooperation should discourage innovation or quality. If you can think of one, please share it. Why would 10 people working together to provide a solution to a problem (building a bridge, let's say) be LESS able to find innovative solutions that meet the needs of all 10 of them than one person working on the problem, alone, to meet his own needs? Why would one person working on the problem alone be more likely to build a better bridge when he's building it by himself and for himself?
What does competition contribute to the human endeavor that it should be engaged in, at all?

The problem with any perfect idealized utopian social system is the hard reality of the limitations of what it has to work with, flawed and fallible human beings.

Whatever system you design and whatever label you choose to attach to that system, that system must handle the fact that human beings are not identical across a wide spectrum of any properties or characteristics you wish to identify. From physical differences, especially the physical wiring of the central nervous system, to the guaranteed uniqueness of the combined environmental factors that impact development into adulthood, there is no way to eliminate or gloss over these differences. They must be accommodated in some fashion.

It is impossible to create a system that will be uniformly perceived as ideal by all members of society. All one can do is find that balance that creates the highest overall satisfaction. Such a system would be required to be dynamic and not an unchanging static set of rules or structure, for human beings continually change, as do the overall environments in which they develop and live.

I won't go into the specific merits or faults of any labeled system you mention, I will only say that your characterizations above are naïve.

 

[PureX]

The problem with any perfect idealized utopian social system is the hard reality of the limitations of what it has to work with, flawed and fallible human beings.

Whatever system you design and whatever label you choose to attach to that system, that system must handle the fact that human beings are not identical across a wide spectrum of any properties or characteristics you wish to identify. From physical differences, especially the physical wiring of the central nervous system, to the guaranteed uniqueness of the combined environmental factors that impact development into adulthood, there is no way to eliminate or gloss over these differences. They must be accommodated in some fashion.

It is impossible to create a system that will be uniformly perceived as ideal by all members of society. All one can do is find that balance that creates the highest overall satisfaction. Such a system would be required to be dynamic and not an unchanging static set of rules or structure, for human beings continually change, as do the overall environments in which they develop and live.

I won't go into the specific merits or faults of any labeled system you mention, I will only say that your characterizations above are naïve.

How is anything you mentioned here improved upon by our competing with each other as opposed to our cooperating with each other for our mutual benefit? And why do you think cooperation is some sort of idealized utopian state? People do it ALL THE TIME. In fact, most of what humanity accomplishes is accomplished through mutual cooperation, and NOT through selfish competition.

 

[MikeF]

How is anything you mentioned here improved upon by our competing with each other as opposed to our cooperating with each other for our mutual benefit? And why do you think cooperation is some sort of idealized utopian state? People do it ALL THE TIME. In fact, most of what humanity accomplishes is accomplished through mutual cooperation, and NOT through selfish competition.

Think of a dog who has a natural instinct and drive to chew things. A dog owner does not want their dog chewing furniture or a favored pair of slippers, so the owner provides acceptable opportunities for their pet to engage in and satisfy the instinctual drive by providing chew toys.

You seem to be arguing that competition must be suppressed and eliminated in society. I am suggesting that you can't. Instead, I am suggesting that competition, or the competitive drive, can be recognized and appropriately channeled and used by society.

I am also arguing that it is not an either/or scenario. Cooperation is valuable and most likely has its own contributing underlying instinctual behaviors. Competition in a system does not prevent or eliminate cooperation.

 

[Fool]

I do not understand your first sentence. in Advaita Hinduism, nothing other than Brahman exists in the universe.

exactly. the illusion is that you, the aupmanyav isn't permanent. it is in fact temporal.

I am not pretending. I am Brahman and so you are too. All things here are Brahman only in their true sense, living or non-living.

so self is part of the all. that is monism, oneness.

In the observed world (which is not truth but only an illusion), dualities exist and we have to take that in to account. 'All as self' works in 'Absolute Reality' but not in the observed world.

duality only exists because of the perceived difference in contrast and defining this vs that; when in fact it's one whole with varying rates of vibrations

 

[PureX]

Think of a dog who has a natural instinct and drive to chew things. A dog owner does not want their dog chewing furniture or a favored pair of slippers, so the owner provides acceptable opportunities for their pet to engage in and satisfy the instinctual drive by providing chew toys.

You seem to be arguing that competition must be suppressed and eliminated in society. I am suggesting that you can't. Instead, I am suggesting that competition, or the competitive drive, can be recognized and appropriately channeled and used by society.

I would suggest that we expose it for exactly what it is: a giant waste of time, energy, and resources that is either being forced on us by others to facilitate our own survival, or that we are forcing on everyone around us because we are enslaved by our own egos. Then, for those who still just can't live without it, there is always sports, and endless variations of game-play.

Mostly, I would suggest that we stop teaching our children that competition is good, and that greed is good, and that winning makes the man (and gets the woman). That there are supposed to be winners and losers and the winners deserve all the goodies while the losers deserve to get all the crap.

I am also arguing that it is not an either/or scenario. Cooperation is valuable and most likely has its own contributing underlying instinctual behaviors. Competition in a system does not prevent or eliminate cooperation.

Absolutely it does!

 

[Aupmanyav]

exactly. the illusion is that you, the aupmanyav isn't permanent. it is in fact temporal.
so self is part of the all. that is monism, oneness.
duality only exists because of the perceived difference in contrast and defining this vs that; when in fact it's one whole with varying rates of vibrations

That is your view, not mine. As a person, I am an illusion.
Duality and multiplicity in the perceived world, but oneness in 'Absolute reality'.
Here again you are right, but that is 'Absolute reality', and not in the perceived world. One cannot disregard multiplicity in the perceived world.
Response to multiplicity in the 'perceived world' will be different. In 'Absolute reality', even the question of response does not exist. None other there to respond.
I cannot do what I do in Delhi if I were in Rome.

 

[MikeF]

What is competition but the quantifying and assessment of differences. You cannot eliminate differences and therefore cannot eliminate competition. It is how we acknowledge and handle those differences, the unavoidable comparison, that is important.

Is it your position that anyone who wishes to be a medical doctor be granted that position, regardless of ability or even effort to attain the required skill? What about in engineering or design? Shall we assign societal jobs strictly by lottery, blind to talent and motivation so as to eliminate competition?

Surely you agree that in our large, modern societies of today, disregarding differences is quite unrealistic, and hence, competition is unavoidable.

I would suggest that we expose it for exactly what it is: a giant waste of time, energy, and resources that is either being forced on us by others to facilitate our own survival, or that we are forcing on everyone around us because we are enslaved by our own egos. Then, for those who still just can't live without it, there is always sports, and endless variations of game-play.

Mostly, I would suggest that we stop teaching our children that competition is good, and that greed is good, and that winning makes the man (and gets the woman). That there are supposed to be winners and losers and the winners deserve all the goodies while the losers deserve to get all the crap.
Absolutely it does!

And these suggestions relate to not letting the dog chew your slippers, but something else instead. The trick is finding the right incentives to direct the instinctual behavior appropriately.

I wholeheartedly agree that culture can exacerbate negative aspects of human instincts instead of mitigating them. But the fact remains that those instincts are there and cannot be eliminated, only directed. If your social system does not appropriately acknowledge and incorporate all aspects of human behavior, it will be unsuccessful.

 

[PureX]

What is competition but the quantifying and assessment of differences.

Competition has nothing to do with measuring our differences and everything to do with, "I get mine before you get yours". If competition was only about measuring our differences sporting events wouldn't keep score, and the players wouldn't be trying to achieve a goal while keeping their opponent from doing it. In fact, there wouldn't even be opponents. Just participants.

But it's ALL ABOUT pitting us against each other, and beating our opponent. To see who is the "better man". The "winner". And who gets the reward. It's all about the glorification of ego and the legitimacy of selfishness and the idea that, "might makes right". And none of this is good for nor necessary to a healthy, effective, efficient society.

You cannot eliminate differences and therefore cannot eliminate competition. It is how we acknowledge and handle those differences, the unavoidable comparison, that is important.

We also can't eliminate violence, or thievery, or deception, or addiction, either, but that doesn't mean we have to accept it as a society, and pretend it's good for us. Because we can at minimize it, and by openly condemning it we can learn to live better without it. This isn't 'pie in the sky'. Humanity has been struggling to become more human for eons. And we ARE more human now than we once were.

Is it your position that anyone who wishes to be a medical doctor be granted that position, regardless of ability or even effort to attain the required skill? What about in engineering or design? Shall we assign societal jobs strictly by lottery, blind to talent and motivation so as to eliminate competition?

Why are you even asking these questions? Why do you think a society that's based on mutual cooperation for everyone's mutual benefit would mean having to allow unqualified doctors? See, this is the kind of nonsense that the capitalist propagandists have been spewing for decades; ever since Milton Friedman's "greed is good" mantra back in the 1970s.

Surely you agree that in our large, modern societies of today, disregarding differences is quite unrealistic, and hence, competition is unavoidable.

I don't know why you're so focused on differences. As neither competition nor cooperation has anything in particular to do with people's differences.

Let's use that bridge analogy, again, as something that would benefit all or most all of the people in a given community. Which makes more sense; 10 people each trying to build their own bridge just for themselves to use, or 10 people working together to build one bridge for all of them to use? How do their "differences" matter? It seems to me that working as a group creates the possibility of a larger skill set to draw from because the individuals are different. Creating a better bridge. As opposed to 10 individuals with different skill sets each building their own bridge using only their own skill sets. Cooperation is also inclusion, and inclusion increases the range of knowledge available for whatever task is being undertaken.

And these suggestions relate to not letting the dog chew your slippers, but something else instead. The trick is finding the right incentives to direct the instinctual behavior appropriately.

The incentive is that everyone needs a bridge built. And the question is how best to answer that need. I say that cooperation is far better than competition as a methodology. Not just at bridge building, but at nearly every activity that we humans engage in to fulfill our needs.

I wholeheartedly agree that culture can exacerbate negative aspects of human instincts instead of mitigating them. But the fact remains that those instincts are there and cannot be eliminated, only directed.

I disagree. they can, like all the other negative instincts we humans have as animals, be mitigated, significantly. That is, after all, the most significant aspect of becoming civilized human beings, as opposed to remaining uncivilized animals.

If your social system does not appropriately acknowledge and incorporate all aspects of human behavior, it will be unsuccessful.

We can acknowledge our negative behaviors without "incorporating" them into our social systems and structures. As we do with any other behavior we deem 'criminal' because it is detrimental to civilized society.

 

[MikeF]

Competition has nothing to do with measuring our differences and everything to do with, "I get mine before you get yours". If competition was only about measuring our differences sporting events wouldn't keep score, and the players wouldn't be trying to achieve a goal while keeping their opponent from doing it. In fact, there wouldn't even be opponents. Just participants.

But it's ALL ABOUT pitting us against each other, and beating our opponent. To see who is the "better man". The "winner". And who gets the reward. It's all about the glorification of ego and the legitimacy of selfishness and the idea that, "might makes right". And none of this is good for nor necessary to a healthy, effective, efficient society.
We also can't eliminate violence, or thievery, or deception, or addiction, either, but that doesn't mean we have to accept it as a society, and pretend it's good for us. Because we can at minimize it, and by openly condemning it we can learn to live better without it. This isn't 'pie in the sky'. Humanity has been struggling to become more human for eons. And we ARE more human now than we once were.
Why are you even asking these questions? Why do you think a society that's based on mutual cooperation for everyone's mutual benefit would mean having to allow unqualified doctors? See, this is the kind of nonsense that the capitalist propagandists have been spewing for decades; ever since Milton Friedman's "greed is good" mantra back in the 1970s.
I don't know why you're so focused on differences. As neither competition nor cooperation has anything in particular to do with people's differences.

Let's use that bridge analogy, again, as something that would benefit all or most all of the people in a given community. Which makes more sense; 10 people each trying to build their own bridge just for themselves to use, or 10 people working together to build one bridge for all of them to use? How do their "differences" matter? It seems to me that working as a group creates the possibility of a larger skill set to draw from because the individuals are different. Creating a better bridge. As opposed to 10 individuals with different skill sets each building their own bridge using only their own skill sets. Cooperation is also inclusion, and inclusion increases the range of knowledge available for whatever task is being undertaken.
The incentive is that everyone needs a bridge built. And the question is how best to answer that need. I say that cooperation is far better than competition as a methodology. Not just at bridge building, but at nearly every activity that we humans engage in to fulfill our needs.
I disagree. they can, like all the other negative instincts we humans have as animals, be mitigated, significantly. That is, after all, the most significant aspect of becoming civilized human beings, as opposed to remaining uncivilized animals.
We can acknowledge our negative behaviors without "incorporating" them into our social systems and structures. As we do with any other behavior we deem 'criminal' because it is detrimental to civilized society.

First let me state that I'm not arguing against cooperation. I am simply saying competition can be a useful and necessary social tool.

I find it fascinating that you do not recognize the competition involved in the process of becoming a doctor or other professional. Aside from the requirement of winnowing out those who cannot perform at the basic level, there is also a limit in a society for how many of a particular profession are needed. This limit automatically creates competition among candidates. If the pipeline is designed well, this competition will maximize the quality of those few who fill those specialized positions.

Your bridge analogy is only reasonable in a small agrarian community, say the Amish. Building a skyscraper is not the same thing as raising a barn. In your small agrarian society, in which everyone is a farmer and everyone able to handle all farming and related tasks, there really is no need for competition, other than in finding a spouse. This, however, is not the environment of a large and complex modern society. Is this your vision for society, to turn back the clock to a simplistic agrarian society?

 

[rational experiences]

As a human who thinks for themselves as a human.

My brother knew earth was in an old science machine nuclear sun term attack. Would occur fission release until around 2012.

UFO. It would have he thought ended around 2012 via non practice of a non science life. No nuclear allowed. Yet calculus not exact as the burning star mass earth gain causes was not known.

1000 years later.
1901 Russia hit etc. Not calculated earth mass or heavens change.

Earths mass was still losing its fused dust mass.

So the machine metal was still losing its mass strength. Only because he used dust mass itself in bulk that it allowed it to occur removed yet not noticed.

Men knew. Said human bio life receiving a metal skin implant had saved their machine. Idealising although metal had earth time shifted...he could practice applied machine cooling himself.

So his machine wouldn't blow up. Knowing exactly why it had before as ground mass disappeared by his causes into sin holes.

There was never any eternity in a sun body mass....said the man scientist. Hence you can never thesis on its behalf.

As innate natural aware human advice exists first. It wasn't an instruction for a theist to pretend human biology had saved his metal machine.

Yet that vain theist in fact misappropriated natural bio human psychic warning advices and used them against us.

As if Ai had updated their advice as a new thesis. Pretending how super intelligent a theist human is.

Instead they want no biological saving and hot radiated transmitters to pass into biology then machines mass.

Which equals machine blows up by overheated mass.

Is how a vain human kills us all.

 

[PureX]

First let me state that I'm not arguing against cooperation. I am simply saying competition can be a useful and necessary social tool.

I find it fascinating that you do not recognize the competition involved in the process of becoming a doctor or other professional. Aside from the requirement of winnowing out those who cannot perform at the basic level, there is also a limit in a society for how many of a particular profession are needed. This limit automatically creates competition among candidates. If the pipeline is designed well, this competition will maximize the quality of those few who fill those specialized positions.

I think it's very strange that you think becoming a doctor is a competition. It's not. Just because someone is unable to take in, retain, and apply the knowledge necessary to do that work does not mean they 'lost a competition', or that someone else 'defeated them'. And as far as there being too many of them that's a issue that would be best solve cooperatively. Because again, it would be stupidly wasteful and even cruel to put as many of them as possible into the field and make them all compete with each other for patients to determine how many of them there should be.

Your bridge analogy is only reasonable in a small agrarian community, say the Amish. Building a skyscraper is not the same thing as raising a barn. In your small agrarian society, in which everyone is a farmer and everyone able to handle all farming and related tasks, there really is no need for competition, other than in finding a spouse. This, however, is not the environment of a large and complex modern society. Is this your vision for society, to turn back the clock to a simplistic agrarian society?

The only difference I can see is that building the sky-scraper requires a lot more people. And a lot more cooperation. Please explain why you think it demands competition. Again you seem to be stuck on the idea of people having different assets and skills, but I fail to see how competition resolves that 'problem' in any way that cooperation does not resolve better.

 

[MikeF]

I think it's very strange that you think becoming a doctor is a competition. It's not. Just because someone is unable to take in, retain, and apply the knowledge necessary to do that work does not mean they 'lost a competition', or that someone else 'defeated them'. And as far as there being too many of them that's a issue that would be best solve cooperatively. Because again, it would be stupidly wasteful and even cruel to put as many of them as possible into the field and make them all compete with each other for patients to determine how many of them there should be.

You have a very narrow definition or use of the word competition. If two individuals apply for the a single position, presumably one will be hired and the other will not. That in economics is a type of competition. If 15 people apply for a single position, the employer is going to evaluate those 15 on a set of criteria that are important to the employer. Whatever words you want to use for that process and however you want to characterize the status of the one awarded the position and those that were not, it does not change the fact that one got the job and the others didn't. The labels do not matter.

The only difference I can see is that building the sky-scraper requires a lot more people. And a lot more cooperation. Please explain why you think it demands competition. Again you seem to be stuck on the idea of people having different assets and skills, but I fail to see how competition resolves that 'problem' in any way that cooperation does not resolve better.

Which architect gets to design the skyscraper? Which contractors get to be awarded the building contract? In a construction company, how is it decided who gets various skilled positions, who is a simple laborer, who takes on the role of various levels of management?

Once all the roles are filled, all involved cooperate and (hopefully) fulfill their roles to complete the project and build the skyscraper. That's the cooperation part. What word do you use to describe the selection process for who gets to fulfill each role?

 

[PureX]

You have a very narrow definition or use of the word competition. If two individuals apply for the a single position, presumably one will be hired and the other will not.

That depends on their skill set relative to the skill set needed to do the task at hand. You are seeing "competition" where there is none. If somehow they had the exact same skill set, and personality, and whatever else might be applicable to the task, then they would be "in competition" with each other. But vetting is not competition.

That in economics is a type of competition.

I am avoiding discussing economics because you will run away when I proclaim the abject failure of capitalism. But your obsession with seeing all economic interaction as "competition" is the direct result of your being so fully immersed in the holy doctrine of "greed is good" capitalism (I believe). Greed is not good, and neither is the insane competition that it forces on is all to extract maximum profit for the capital investor from every economic interaction. At the cost of all our well-being, the well-being of the planet, and maybe even all our lives. This "greed is good" capitalist insanity has to stop!

Which architect gets to design the skyscraper?

The one that proposed the most popular design. And by popular, I mean the design that fulfills the needs of everyone effected by it's coming into being.

Which contractors get to be awarded the building contract?

The one with the most expertise relative to the task at hand.

n a construction company, how is it decided who gets various skilled positions, who is a simple laborer, who takes on the role of various levels of management?

The skills themselves will decide their application. And too, the need to keep training up new people with those skills. None of this stuff requires pitting people against each other. None of it. These are all COOPERATIVE solutions.