From: nospam@example.net   
      
   Hello oldernow,   
      
   On Thu, 1 Feb 2024, oldernow wrote:   
      
   >> In fact, no social systems "work". There are no "socialism" force,   
   >> "communism" force, or "capitalism" forces in the universe. Those   
   >> are all *appearances* emergent within the context of observation of   
   >> multitudes of people behaving as they are. When a preponderance of   
   >   
   >> I would argue that the "ism" is a program loaded into the   
   >> mind for how to operate a society with limited resources.   
   >   
   > I like that model.   
   >   
   > FWIW, I quickly wind up in self-referential quagmires when modeling   
   > includes the notion of "mind". We'll see if I have time to, um,   
   > "wax psychotic" on that theme this time around. :-)   
      
   Who doesn't? The mind has boggled philosophers for millennia. You have   
   the subject/object distinction, you have collapse into solipsism and the   
   general dissatisfaction with the fact that everything, perhaps even   
   existence, is based on some assumption and degree of uncertainty.   
      
   I'm a materialist, and my point of view is that physical reality exists.   
   I do admit that it does rest on assumptions, but I shift the burden of   
   proof on people who propose other models of the world than materialism   
   with science as the main method of gaining knowledge. Hmm, maybe that   
   position is called scientism? I think materialism in professional   
   philosophy has plenty of sub-isms.   
      
   >> As for capitalism, it is an odd bird. Ludvig von Mises   
   >> argued that it is not a political ideology but only a   
   >> science that says that by using this "system" we get the   
   >> highest possible physical standard of living over time.   
   >   
   > I still can't see capitalism as a thing, but a *seeming*   
   > overriding/meta way of doing things collectively that magically   
   > appears (like a circle floating in mid-air when the hot tip of a   
   > firebrand is moved quickly in a circular motion in the dark) when   
   > enough people act with respect to their objective needs/wants with   
   > self interest.   
      
   Well, I guess markets are emergent phenomena. And economics is a young   
   science in that uncomfortable place in between social sciences and   
   natural sciences. I think your impression of indistinctness or fuzzyness   
   is probably right apart from made up definitions.   
      
   >> This gives us more time and more options to fulfill our   
   >> wishes, but capitalism says nothing about what we should   
   >> do with this time or what to wish for.   
   >   
   > How could it, being merely a model for self-interested behavior   
   > generated under the assumption it's more than that? ;-)   
      
   True. An interesting question is if we can read any normative or   
   descriptive ethical value out of markets. Do you think we can?   
      
   I'm not a fan of is/ought, and capitalism I think does dovetail nicely   
   with some kind of rational egoism or perhaps, biology dovetails nicely   
   with some kind of epicureanism.   
      
   As you can tell, I'm just trying to plant seeds for new threads here. ;)   
      
   >>> What never has, and absolutely cannot work is personhood,   
   >>> i.e. the belief that one is a limited ball of free-will   
   >>> in opposition to all not-personhood. That's the basis of   
   >>> mental illness, because it's purely a mental - i.e. "mind   
   >>> only" (in Lankavatara Sutra speak) - phenomena.   
   >>   
   >> Could you please expand and rephrase? I'm not sure I   
   >> understand your meaning here.   
   >   
   > Well... is it not the case that what we refer to as our "self" or   
   > "person" is merely an idea/notion/concept? If it's more than that,   
   > where is it? Can you should me yours? Because I've been having a   
   > heck of a time finding mine. :-)   
      
   Ok, I think I understand now where you are coming from and where you are   
   going.   
      
   > Nevertheless, most of our behavior seems guided by that somewhat   
   > fluid idea/notion/concept. "I" do things "Because it's who I   
   > *am*, dammit!" Nevermind the fact said "who" and/or "I" cannot   
   > be located, shown, or even at all described save in immediately   
   > circular verbiage.   
   >   
   > Right?   
      
   Have you read about open individualism and any other theories of   
   personal identity?   
      
   I'll leave you this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_individualism   
      
   and also this: https://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/   
   024-January/118652.html   
      
   I think you might find people with similar ideas in that mailinglist   
   archive.   
      
   > Hence the "mind only" phrase (perhaps a phrase like "purely   
   > notional/conceptual" resonates better?). I (haha) just happen to   
   > like that phrase, but for me (haha) it derives from the so-called   
   > "Lankavatara Sutra", which employs it incessantly.   
   >   
   > I think a lot of difficulty in discussing such is due to language   
   > "begging the question", i.e. containing assumptions about reality   
   > that bias thinking along such lines. Maybe we ought be employing   
   > akin to "e-prime" in times likes these.... ;-)   
      
   Another point of view is the Wittgensteinian that perhaps, upon closer   
   inspection, you are not asking anything at all? ;)   
      
   >>> The mental illness also known as personhood is what   
   >>> generates behavior also known as "selfish", which is   
   >>> *always* at odds with a working society.   
   >>   
   >> So you don't believe that capitalism transforms selfish   
   >> desires into products and services which benefit   
   >> others? My opinion is that this is one of the great   
   >> virtues of capitalism. It turns something bad, which   
   >> resides inside all of us (our selfishness and greed)   
   >> into something beneficial for mankind at large through   
   >> the alchemy of markets.   
   >   
   > I honestly can't say. It seems a rather "chicken and egg"-ish thing   
   > to ponder, and I tend to see nervous-system-self-centric-tendencies   
   > as more cause than effect. But considering each different aspects of   
   > each other - e.g. ying/yang - is probably a more reasonable approach.   
      
   Food for thought. =) Maybe alt.philosophy will live again? ;)   
      
   Best regards,   
   Daniel   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)