04-27-2021, 11:53 AM
I have a few random thoughts.
Science.
Many organizations and entities are corrupt and not pure in intent in this world today. Science is no exception. Empirical approach to data is in itself a functional and objective system. So there is nothing wrong with science in and of itself, it is the people and the organizations they work within that distort the results of scientific investigation.
Studies are notorious for being skewed toward a result. Profit (much of it like hedging "futures") and maintaining grants is how much of research science survives. Though individuals may be pure in intent, the orgs they work for or the grants they need to maintain have to justify their existence.
So, in my opinion, to talk about science is not a simple subject. Scientists have paradigms like everyone else, though they like to think of themselves as objective. Even double-blind studies have the one great unsolved empirical anomaly of the placebo effect, which throws a huge wrench in results.
So science, even in its purest state at this point in time, has its limitations. Now throw in profitability and research survival, and things get murkier.
My general point is that I find the polarized view of science vs. conspiracy one-dimensional. Some conspiracies are true and some science is corrupted; and some conspiracies are grasping at straws and some science is legitimate; and so on. Intuition and discernment are advised, and still, it's not like we KNOW much of anything, and what we think we know expands as we apprehend more information. Biologists do not even understand metabolism in any way that could be called comprehensive as an example. Like much of science, there is enough data to allow for some functionality—Newtonian physics being another example, which we now know is incorrect but viable for certain things.
Money
I don't see money as evil. It is only something we use. I call it cabbage. It is energy, a tool of exchange. It's the systems and individuals who levy the power of survival or manipulation over others with money—even in a small way STO-oriented individuals who like the idea of having better "things" or jobs even if that is subconscious—that is the cause of imbalance, in my opinion.
So, how to evolve out of this survival box we are in involving how much money one has?
1. People evolve consciously, so that they don't respond to the manipulation and fear.
2. The manipulation and fear are removed. (UBI could be the first step here.)
So one might say it is the old question of whether the chicken or the egg comes first.
The way people wake up to ideas or change can happen in a number of ways. Activism has certainly played its part. I would bring racism up at this point. It has been since 1865 in the US that slavery was abolished. It is now over 150 years later and still racism exists against African Americans. So activism can only go so far in changing paradigms. After that, I think unconditional acceptance is the vehicle which carries the movement forth, wherein those who are still racist are not vilified and those who are judged for their color are seen as equal other-selves. There are two sides to the coin, where the "perpetrators" must be accepted as well as the "victims."
Science.
Many organizations and entities are corrupt and not pure in intent in this world today. Science is no exception. Empirical approach to data is in itself a functional and objective system. So there is nothing wrong with science in and of itself, it is the people and the organizations they work within that distort the results of scientific investigation.
Studies are notorious for being skewed toward a result. Profit (much of it like hedging "futures") and maintaining grants is how much of research science survives. Though individuals may be pure in intent, the orgs they work for or the grants they need to maintain have to justify their existence.
So, in my opinion, to talk about science is not a simple subject. Scientists have paradigms like everyone else, though they like to think of themselves as objective. Even double-blind studies have the one great unsolved empirical anomaly of the placebo effect, which throws a huge wrench in results.
So science, even in its purest state at this point in time, has its limitations. Now throw in profitability and research survival, and things get murkier.
My general point is that I find the polarized view of science vs. conspiracy one-dimensional. Some conspiracies are true and some science is corrupted; and some conspiracies are grasping at straws and some science is legitimate; and so on. Intuition and discernment are advised, and still, it's not like we KNOW much of anything, and what we think we know expands as we apprehend more information. Biologists do not even understand metabolism in any way that could be called comprehensive as an example. Like much of science, there is enough data to allow for some functionality—Newtonian physics being another example, which we now know is incorrect but viable for certain things.
Money
I don't see money as evil. It is only something we use. I call it cabbage. It is energy, a tool of exchange. It's the systems and individuals who levy the power of survival or manipulation over others with money—even in a small way STO-oriented individuals who like the idea of having better "things" or jobs even if that is subconscious—that is the cause of imbalance, in my opinion.
So, how to evolve out of this survival box we are in involving how much money one has?
1. People evolve consciously, so that they don't respond to the manipulation and fear.
2. The manipulation and fear are removed. (UBI could be the first step here.)
So one might say it is the old question of whether the chicken or the egg comes first.
The way people wake up to ideas or change can happen in a number of ways. Activism has certainly played its part. I would bring racism up at this point. It has been since 1865 in the US that slavery was abolished. It is now over 150 years later and still racism exists against African Americans. So activism can only go so far in changing paradigms. After that, I think unconditional acceptance is the vehicle which carries the movement forth, wherein those who are still racist are not vilified and those who are judged for their color are seen as equal other-selves. There are two sides to the coin, where the "perpetrators" must be accepted as well as the "victims."