Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [WisdomForum] Re: Tommy's Survivalism and Communicationalism

Expand Messages
  • Tommy Beavitt
    Chris, ... Ah, you are following my argument closely here. Thank you. There are a variety of corporate entities into which the murderous terrorists of whom we
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 22 5:42 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Chris,

      >Tommy said:
      > >>I am not advocating that anybody attempt to
      >communicate with suicidal terrorists, no, the obvious thing is to gun
      >them down before they can commit any murderous acts. There is,
      >however, a need to communicate with the corporate entities into which
      >these suicide attackers have been subsumed. <<
      >
      >Into what "corporate entities" have these murderous terrorists been
      >subsumed and why should we not gun down these corporate entities as
      >well?

      Ah, you are following my argument closely here. Thank you.

      There are a variety of corporate entities into which the murderous
      terrorists of whom we speak have been subsumed. Some of these overlap
      to a lesser or greater extent.

      The point about subsumption of an invididual into a corporate entity,
      whether these be Al Quaeda, Disney or the United States of America,
      is that the individuals themselves are only relevant (from the
      perspective of that entity) according to the roles that they play. If
      they leave or are killed there will be others to take their places. A
      corporate entity can be said to have died when there are no more
      individuals left to play these roles.

      You might say, well then - let us kill alll the individuals who play
      roles in Al Quaeda, or make it so uncomfortable for them that they
      will go and new ones will not appear to take their place. And on the
      face of it, this is a reasonable approach.

      My concern is that the role that the corporate entity, Al Quaeda, is
      playing, with reference to the corporate entity called the United
      States of America, is itself subsumed within the larger, notional
      corporate entity called the Other. And this is main point that my
      communicationalist theory seeks to address.

      Whatever else is true, it is necessary to communicate with the Other.
      As you rightly pointed out on the Sartre list recently, "the
      appearance of the Other is indispensable...to the very existence of
      my consciousness as self-consciousness." Any attempt to hide one's
      head in the sand, to deny the question of the existence of the Other
      in the sense of the validity of the Other's in-itself projects, will
      necessarily result in events such as September 11th, leading to
      eventual loss of Self. I am certainly not arguing that in this case
      defence is therefore unnecessary or counterproductive but I am
      arguing that any defence strategy must have the need for
      communication with the Other (as represented by whoever the current
      enemy is) as its central component. The entities Other has as its
      constituents are both individuals and corporate entities.

      >
      >Tommy also said:
      > >>If we are to tackle the
      >causes as well as the effects of terrorism we must attempt to
      >communicate with them. Forms of communication available include
      >pitched battle, diplomacy, economic action etc.<<
      >
      >
      >Certainly the root causes of terrorism need to be addressed. But
      >how do you address them and under what conditions? One thing that
      >must be avoided is to placate them as a conciliation to their
      >terrorism. To reward them for terrorism would only encourage more
      >terrorism. That is Psychology 101.

      Actually I don't agree with this. It is the classic fallacy of the
      control perspective. Of course if the primary aim is to maintain the
      control of Other by Self - and if we don't mind ignoring roughly
      half of all reality - then this is reasonable. But if we want to stop
      this terrorism which currently constitutes the bulk of communication
      between Other and Self then we need to explore alternative means of
      communication. It would also tend to lead us in the direction of
      wisdom rather than ignorance (because wisdom is defined as the
      ability to see the perspective of Otherand thereby place of Self
      relative to Whole).

      >Surely, you are familiar with the idea of positive reinforcement.
      >Terrorism should only beget one response--greater violence.
      >Peaceful engagement should be responded to with constructive
      >assistance. Perhaps that is Diplomacy 201. I think the problem with
      >the war on terrorism now is that it has not been utterly defeated,
      >and that leads the terrorists to believe that they can achieve a
      >negotiated and conditional settlement. Such a solution is totally
      >unacceptable. The terrorist should be forced to face the necessity
      >of unconditional surrender and complete renunciation of
      >their methods. Given that, the option is now communication but war.

      That is the choice that is being made, yes. I class this as Self
      being in denial of the existence of Other. I don't think it can be
      classed as wisdom. But I don't define war as being absence of
      communication. War is a form of communication, although there are
      alternative forms. War is only a valid form of communication from the
      perspective of a corporate Self (within which individual, personal
      Selves have been subsumed) because, as we have earlier discussed,
      corporate Self can communicate with corporate Other even through the
      expenditure of individual constituent lives such as that of Daniel
      Pearl. From the perspective of the individual Self that is one of
      Daniel Pearl's children, or his wife, this form of communication
      between corporate Self and corporate Other is both abhorrent and
      absurd. Except to the extent, obviously, that these individual Selves
      are viewed in their (expendable) roles as constituents of any
      particular corporate Self, such as the United States of America, from
      the perspective of which this discussion is taking place.

      >
      >Tommy also said:
      > >>I agree with your idea of balance of power. But how can power be
      >balanced without communication? My purpose is to facilitate a
      >discussion wherein the starting point of any ethical theory is
      >communication not survival.<<
      >
      >The role of survivalism in Tommy's philosophy appears as somewhat
      >obscure to me. One cannot communicate unless one survives.
      >Survival is a fundamental human impulse for any healthy
      >personality--if not survival of the individual, then the survival of
      >something the individual cares about. Here again I detect an
      >influence of Buddhism in your philosophy that treats earthly
      >existence as somehow unsavory, burdensome and undesirable. True,
      >people have held this view, but it strikes me as, well, misanthropic
      >and death-oriented, rather than humanistic and life affirming. This
      >human life that each of us has is--from a secular point of view--the
      >only life that we get and the challenge before us is to make the
      >most of it. Ideally, humans try to be as productive and as
      >constructive as they can be in the one life time that they are
      >accorded. In order to optimize productivity and construtiveness, we
      >seek to survive as long as we can.

      I don't say that individual life is bad. It is fine as far as it
      goes. I don't (in my role as advocate for communicationalism)
      particularly celebrate death either, other than in its role as the
      necessary counterpart to life. But I do think that we in the
      post-enlightenment West have been guilty of elevating individual
      human life in its quantitative aspect to an insupportable level in
      our systems of ethics. I think that radical Islamic Other has a very
      valid point in questioning this assumption and I think suicide
      attacks are a very effective means of communicating this, our
      fallacy, to us. The point at which we start actually listening to
      this communication may be the point at which this form of
      communication no requires to be employed.

      I disagree that "surviving as long as we can" necessarily optimises
      "productivity and constructiveness". It may very well be that if we
      were to mitigate our obsession with the quantitative aspects of
      individual existence (eg. longevity and number of individual
      existents) with a qualitative aspect of existence which placed due
      emphasis on the quality of existence (in terms of communication with
      Other and understanding of Whole) we would come to accept that a life
      which reaches its conclusion at the age of 60 can be as good a life
      as one which is snuffed out at 80. For you to make your argument work
      you will have to define "productivity and constructiveness".

      >Tommy said:
      >
      > >>Actually, James, I question both of your assumptions here. Everybody
      >does want to communicate. It is the one thing we ALL have in common.<<
      >
      >
      >As for the idea of communicating, I have often wondered what
      >communicationalist theories think we have so much to communicate
      >about. Quite honestly, if some one approaches me with the idea of
      >discussing their religion with me, I turn a deaf ear. And these
      >people are legion--Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Muslims,
      >Evangelical Christians, Hare Krishnas, Scientologists, Moonies,
      >etc. And then you can add the political extremists to this
      >list--Nazis, doctrinaire communists, fascists. I can't break off
      >communication with them fast enough to suit me. There really is no
      >real "communication" with these true believers. Usually what we
      >have is a one way diatribe, often filled with rank irrationality or
      >overheated rhetoric.
      >

      I too have had communications with cultists. Once I was approached by
      the Scientologists from a shop front on Hindley Street in Adelaide,
      South Australia. They gave me a free "personality test" which
      concluded that I was very mixed up and needed their help. They then
      tried to sell me a book. I went away, ripped up some old clothes,
      rubbed mud in my hair, clothes and face, put a permanently squint
      expression on my face and went back to their shopfront clutching a
      handmade, metal bound, 1' by 4' by 6" box (which contained my violin)
      in my arms. I walked up to the evangelists who cowered away into the
      back of the shop. I managed to corner one of them and say, "I need
      help!". "What's in the box?", he asked. "Weapons, man!", I grated.
      Suffice to say, he was much more concerned with getting me off his
      premises than saving my soul.

      After I had washed and changed I went back and asked the "operative"
      what he thought of my little drama. He did seem slightly impressed. I
      like to think that this was a valid form of communication.

      >Tommy further noted:
      > >>There are many individuals and entities whose position regarding
      >communication can be fairly regarded as hiding their heads in the
      >sand. But for my theory to work it is a simple matter to disregard
      >them even if some corporate entities into which they have been
      >subsumed use them for the purposes of communication<<
      >
      >I must be one of those hiding in my head in the sand, because if a
      >would-be Hitler, or bin Laden came to my door with the intention of
      >communicating, well...Let's just say it would not be pretty. Some
      >statements call for actions, not a linguistic response.
      >

      I don't class actions as non-communication. Most actions which are
      meaningful involve a recognition of their intent and content on the
      part of a cognizant Other. What you are here narrowly defining as
      "linguistics" are the form of communication which utilizes written
      and spoken words in a particular human language.

      >Tommy wrote:
      > >>To again cite the apposite if rather emotive example of Daniel
      >Pearl, it does not
      >particularly concern us whether he managed to achieve a genuine level
      >of communication with his kidnappers/executioners. <<
      >
      >Now, word choice is again revealing. Tommy described Daniel Pearl's
      >killers as "executioners" as if Danielr Pearl's murderers were
      >carrying out a lawful court judgment of capital punishment
      >promulgated by a lawfully constituted and legitimate court. Here I
      >think you fail to distinguish between lawful authority and brute
      >violence. Yet it defies reality to describe what happened to Daniel
      >Pearl as an "execution". It was a brutal and callous murder of an
      >innocent man.

      I think you have to accept that, for the purposes of the definitions
      which underpin my communicationalist theory, you are failing to
      accept the existence of Other. You are glibly defining the Good as
      that which benefits Self and extrapolating that without an
      acknowledgement of the distinction between Self and Other. This works
      in a legalistic sense when we are dealing with a specific
      jurisdiction but it does not work in a moral sense for all places and
      all times. Further, you use the word, "innocent" in a highly loaded
      and morally specific sense without first defining what innocence
      means. If you are countering my communicationalist theory from an
      existentialist perspective you will have to do better than that.

      >Tommy further wrote:
      > >>It was not to him that they bore
      >any particular malice but to the imperialist/zionist entity of Israel
      >allied with the USA (as they no doubt perceive it)<<
      >
      >Once again we have a curious locution at play. Here we have bandied
      >about "zionist" as if it were a pejorative like "babykiller". The
      >zionist movement was a responsible social movement among Jews of
      >many nations. The shortlived UN resolution condemning it as racism
      >was, I believe, repealed. Zionists were not evil, unlike
      >terrorists. Secondly, imperialism has sometimes had positive
      >effects. I think if one had to choose between being an imperialist
      >and a terrorist, imperialism should win out almost every time. The
      >idea of imperilism has not always been linked to racism or
      >exploitatioin or violence against indigenous populations, as it was
      >with some more recent European Empires. Athenian, Roman and the
      >French imperialism of the Enlightenment had a bit to recommend it.
      >Although, to be sure, I would not seek to mount a defense of
      >imperialism per se, it must be conceded that some aspects of
      >imperialism were positive, which is a far cry different from what we
      >can say about the terrorism practiced by some Islamic fundamentalist
      >extremists. But if it is a choice between the lesser of two evils,
      >I think most forms of constructive imperialism should be chosen over
      >the indiscriminate murder and destruction of terrorism any day.
      >

      It is not me who uses "zionist" here in its perjorative sense. I am
      using the term as it is used by radical Islamic Other who is the
      subject of this example. The Self of the American corporate entity
      uses the epithet, "terrorist" in a similarly perjorative sense. It
      should possible to use both terms without quotes when they are being
      used in the context of how a particular corporate entity would view
      them.

      >Tommy wrote:
      > >>I totally disagree. It is only to the extent that views and
      >constructs differ that true communication is possible. If we were all
      >identical in our views and constructs there would obviously be
      >nothing TO communicate. The greater the difference, the greater the
      >potential for communication.<<
      >
      >The Jewish child being stuffed into a death camp oven could not be
      >more different from the self-described Arryan Nazi doing the
      >stuffing, but I really don't think they had anything to communicate
      >between them. Likewise with peaceful lawabiding members of the air
      >travelling public with terrorist hijackers intent on killing them
      >all and committing suicide. In these instances, I think Tommy would
      >agree that the greater the difference, the less the potential for
      >communication.

      But the individual Nazis who were doing the stufffing of Jewish
      children into death camp ovens were capable of these acts only to the
      extent that they had been subsumed into the corporate entity that was
      the ruling Nazi party of Germany. They were "just following orders".
      The corporal who was the glue which held the American GIs to the
      corporate entity which was the platoon which conducted the massacre
      at My Lai issued orders to those GIs who carried them out very much
      as the SS performed their acts at Auschwitz.

      The Nazi party of Germany which was itself subsumed into the Axis
      Powers which confronted the Allies in the Second World War was indeed
      engaged in a form of communication with the Other that those Allies
      represented. As far as that Nazi corporate entity was concerned, the
      Jewish race was the epitome of what was most reprehensible about what
      that Other represented to it. It seemingly believed, as does the
      corporate entity into which you, Chris, appear to have been subsumed,
      that the "evil" of the Other could be eradicated by killing all the
      individuals who play roles in that entity, or make it so
      uncomfortable for them that new ones will not appear to take their
      place.

      I happen to believe that race is a particularly unmeaningful and
      unsophisticated criterion by which to define Other and I do accept
      therefore that the corporate entity that is Bush's America is
      slightly more subtle and therefore more capable of empire than the
      Nazi party of Germany was.

      >Tommy said:
      >>>I agree with your idea of balance of power. But how can power be
      >balanced without communication? My purpose is to facilitate a
      >discussion wherein the starting point of any ethical theory is
      >communication not survival.<<
      >
      >But we (decent, peaceful, lawabiding folk) don't need a balance of
      >power with criminals and murderers. In this instance, we need an
      >utterly lopsided imbalance of power. Responsible nations should not
      >have to balance power with terrorists organizations. Responsible
      >nations need to eradicate terrorist oragnizations. Would any one
      >like their local police to have a balance of power with the Mafia,
      >the Yakuza, or the Russian Mob? The very suggestion flies in the
      >face of common sense reality. When Tommy speaks of gunning down
      >terrorists but communicating with their "corporate" sponsors, I
      >imagine him saying that we should shoot Al Capone's trigger man, but
      >shower sweet words of persuasion on the God Father himself. Just
      >the opposite should be true. We should go after the larger
      >entites--those "corporate entites"--Tommy refers to far more
      >ferociously than we attack its common foot soliders, for if we cut
      >off the head of the snake, the body with simply wither. Indeed,
      >military strategy calls for targetting command and control centers
      >as a top priority. Be it in war strategy or effective law
      >enforcement, the "corporate entity" is what must be attacked first
      >and foremost. To do otherwise would merely be to guarantee one's
      >own ultimate defeat.
      >

      Ironically, I am quite obviously far more in tune with the
      actualities of US foreign policy than you are. You are led to believe
      that US foreign policy is formulated as a means by which to eradicate
      evil. Wheras it is actually formulated to optimise the advantage to
      corporate entity Self of dividing opposition between the different
      entities which constitute Other. I completely refute the idea that
      the reason George Bush sr. didn't go after Saddam Hussein in the 1991
      Gulf war was any other than the realisation that having an isolated
      and weakened (but surviving) Saddam in the Middle East was
      strategically advantageous. There are so many other instances of the
      US working with morally compromised dictators for pragmatic reasons.

      >Tommy wrote:
      > >>From this starting point it is possible to extrapolate an ethic which
      >doesn't rely on making a distinction between the value of my survival
      >or the survival of my friends and the value of the survival of the
      >Other. This seems to me to have been the stumbling point to all
      >attempts to develop an ethical system since the "death of god" more
      >than 100 years ago. Utilitarianism failed for a similar reason: it
      >simply doesn't follow that the good is the greatest happiness of the
      >greatest number of human beings. That has led to medical and food
      >technologies being applied to allowing ever greater numbers of humans
      >to be helped to survive ever longer with all the attendant social and
      >ecological problems. We simply cannot continue to attempt to create
      >greater quantities of good by simply creating the conditions for
      >greater numbers of people to feel happiness.<<
      >
      >First of all, utilitarianism has not utterly failed. It is alive
      >and well in many philosophical systems and economic models.
      >Secondly, I think Tommy's cogency is really detriorating here. I
      >find it troubling that Tommy does not see the survival of his
      >friends as a very important aim and therefore would be hesitant to
      >want to be one of Tommy's friends. There is something chilling
      >about the "friend" who is, say, serving you a dinner or driving you
      >along the autobahn who suddenly announces that he does not regard
      >your survival as important. Similarly, if Tommy were a military
      >ally who announced during a pitched battled that he did not see the
      >survival of his allies as very important, I dare say that Tommy's
      >"allies" might immediately seek to disassociate themselves from
      >Tommy and move to a fox whole where the comraderie were a bit more
      >cohesive. The very claim is counter-intuitive to the notion of what
      >"friendship" is or should be. This talk of food is not very
      >cogently directed to the point. In any event, problems of over
      >population are better dealt with by the adoption of effective
      >methods of birth control and improving agricultural efficiency, not
      >by denying health care and resources to the elderly, as Tommy's post
      >seems to suggest to me. I think it's a good thing that people are
      >livng longer and I'd hope that younger generations will strive to be
      >more productive and constructive to ensure that all enjoy greater
      >happiness in the future.

      I don't accept your rejection of my friendship on the grounds that I
      don't see your survival as an important aim. I am not in the business
      of helping you to survive but I am engaged in helping you to
      communicate. It may well be that your survival is also helped by the
      extent to which I am helping you to communicate - and vice versa -
      but that is not my main aim. I would miss your dialogue - it is true
      - but it would be something I could recover from, I think.

      My post does not imply the denial of health care and resources to the
      elderly. But it does question the assumption that they are the
      primary moral imperative.

      >Tommy wrote:
      > >>By taking communication rather than survival to be the good we are
      >able to increase the good by defining it as an increase the total
      >amount of communication (defined as ability to to take up a
      >particular and unique position within the Whole relative to
      >multiplicitous Other and get to know that towards which the mapping
      >of perspective of Self relative to perspective of Other tends).
      >Unlike happiness or survival which tends towards infinity (6bn and
      >counting), communication tends towards 1.<<
      >
      >This last observation is really a bit too mystical for me. I think
      >that the idea of six billion intelligent, productive, constructive,
      >peaceful, loving, industrious, healthy, law-abiding and happy people
      >is a wonderful thing. The more we can sustain under the best
      >conditions, the better. It should inspire us all to do more in the
      >world to make it a better place for all those new babies coming into
      >the world. Communicating better will surely be one of those things,
      >but I don't think that communicating on Tommy's terms would be to
      >anyone advantage in the long run.

      I have no objections to there being six billion intelligent,
      productive, constructive, peaceful, industrious, healthy, law-abiding
      and happy people on this world. Neither do I have any objection to
      there being six billion stupid, consumerist, vandalistic, bellicose,
      idle, sickly, criminal and suicidal people. Either way, it is
      something I am going to have to live with. But I do question the
      assumption that the survival of all of these six billion people can
      be said to be an universal and primary good from which an entire
      ethical system can be constructed.

      I seek to instead construct an ethical system based on the premise
      that communication between an increasingly large constituent of Self,
      represented by (amongst others) that human constituency, and Other,
      represented by (amongst others) that human constituency, is the basic
      good upon which other goods can be predicated.

      Tommy Beavitt

      >
      >At 3:33 pm +0000 19/3/02, james tan wrote:
      >>communicationlism....well, obviously it'd be good if there can be
      >>communication; but, not everybody wants to communicate even if YOU want to
      >>communicate. communicationlism cannot be taken for granted, and there has to
      >>be some common grounds for such interaction to be possible.
      >
      >Actually, James, I question both of your assumptions here. Everybody
      >does want to communicate. It is the one thing we ALL have in common.
      >
      >I am defining communication as that which leads to a genuine
      >understanding of the position of the Other (and via it, position of
      >self, and, by mapping of position of self relative to multiplicitous
      >Other, Whole).
      >There are many individuals and entities whose position regarding
      >communication can be fairly regarded as hiding their heads in the
      >sand. But for my theory to work it is a simple matter to disregard
      >them even if some corporate entities into which they have been
      >subsumed use them for the purposes of communication. To again cite
      >the apposite if rather emotive example of Daniel Pearl, it does not
      >particularly concern us whether he managed to achieve a genuine level
      >of communication with his kidnappers/executioners. If we were him
      >then it would concern us, but we are not. However, his individual
      >fate does concern us as it relates to the unfolding of the historical
      >drama currently being referred to as the 'war against terrorism'. As
      >swmaerske recently wrote, "he is dead ... for what he represented to
      >the men who captured him"; they used him as a means of sending their
      >message to the rest of the world. It was not to him that they bore
      >any particular malice but to the imperialist/zionist entity of Israel
      >allied with the USA (as they no doubt perceive it)
      >
      >The "common ground" to this interaction is, simply, the Whole, within
      >which we all subsist.
      >
      >>there are group
      >>of people in this world whose views, constructs of reality are so utterly
      >>different, any attempts at communication is futile.
      >
      >I totally disagree. It is only to the extent that views and
      >constructs differ that true communication is possible. If we were all
      >identical in our views and constructs there would obviously be
      >nothing TO communicate. The greater the difference, the greater the
      >potential for communication.
      >
      >>besides, the real issue
      >>might be power, not communication, so even if there seems to be a semblance
      >>of communication, there is still a hidden agenda; and there is no
      >>negotiotion with power..
      >
      >Again, I disagree. There precisely IS negotiation with power but only
      >by rival power. Why do you think the American military/industrial
      >complex is spending so much diplomatic energy rubbishing the views of
      >the "european liberal elite"? It is because the entity of which these
      >views are a representation have a certain amount of (economic, if not
      >military) power and so there is a necessity to bother to negotiate
      >with them. Likewise with China or Saudi Arabia.
      >
      >>people like omar allattas (the one who flew the
      >>plane to hit the wtc) can't be communicated (just don't bother, it would be
      >>futile, they may even trick u into thinking they have accepted ur views),
      >>they are not to be 'counselled', they just simply have to be caught first
      >>and then be killed before they could act their anti-social or terrorist
      >>acts. to advocate communication with the such, one almost naively has no
      >>idea how entrenched are their radical views (entrenched enough to be living
      >>in america for decades as a sleeping bomb, and turn suicidally intending for
      >>destruction at the expense of their own lives - with such, there can be no
      >>communication, only extermination, and it boils down not to morality, but to
      >>intelligence and power.
      >
      >You have failed to grasp the point which makes this theory work,
      >which is that entities may be individual humans (like Omar Allatas)
      >or they may be corporate entities into which individuals have (for
      >the purposes of any particular communication event such as September
      >11th) been subsumed. I am not advocating that anybody attempt to
      >communicate with suicidal terrorists, no, the obvious thing is to gun
      >them down before they can commit any murderous acts. There is,
      >however, a need to communicate with the corporate entities into which
      >these suicide attackers have been subsumed. If we are to tackle the
      >causes as well as the effects of terrorism we must attempt to
      >communicate with them. Forms of communication available include
      >pitched battle, diplomacy, economic action etc.
      >
      >>at the end of the day, it is a question of who has
      >>the bigger power, not justification in morality. u can argue all u want
      > >about ethics against the man who killed pearl, but at the end of the day, he
      >>died with a bullet inside his brain. pearl might have begged for his life,
      >>might have even reasoned better than his murderer about the ethics of it
      >>all, but the man who has the power decided it didn't matter; they have
      >>overpowered pearl; that, is what that mattered. for communication to be
      >>possible, u need to assume there is a correct balance of power, else, forget
      >>it.
      >
      >I agree with your idea of balance of power. But how can power be
      >balanced without communication? My purpose is to facilitate a
      >discussion wherein the starting point of any ethical theory is
      >communication not survival.
      >
      >From this starting point it is possible to extrapolate an ethic which
      >doesn't rely on making a distinction between the value of my survival
      >or the survival of my friends and the value of the survival of the
      >Other. This seems to me to have been the stumbling point to all
      >attempts to develop an ethical system since the "death of god" more
      >than 100 years ago. Utilitarianism failed for a similar reason: it
      >simply doesn't follow that the good is the greatest happiness of the
      >greatest number of human beings. That has led to medical and food
      >technologies being applied to allowing ever greater numbers of humans
      >to be helped to survive ever longer with all the attendant social and
      >ecological problems. We simply cannot continue to attempt to create
      >greater quantities of good by simply creating the conditions for
      >greater numbers of people to feel happiness.
      >
      >By taking communication rather than survival to be the good we are
      >able to increase the good by defining it as an increase the total
      >amount of communication (defined as ability to to take up a
      >particular and unique position within the Whole relative to
      >multiplicitous Other and get to know that towards which the mapping
      >of perspective of Self relative to perspective of Other tends).
      >Unlike happiness or survival which tends towards infinity (6bn and
      >counting), communication tends towards 1.
      >
      >Tommy
      >
      >
      >Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      >ADVERTISEMENT
      ><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=215002.1818248.3328688.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705020585:HM/A=847665/R=0/*http://ads.x10.com/?bHlhaG9vbW9uc3RlcjcuZGF0=1016701312%3eM=215002.1818248.3328688.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705020585:HM/A=847665/R=1>
      >
      >
      >
      >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      >WisdomForum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
      ><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.

      --
      Tommy Beavitt
      Development Officer, Celtic Fringe Tourist Association
      Achmore, Dundonnell, Ross-shire, IV23 2RE
      tel. 01854 633362, mobile. 07884 001541
      http://www.celticfringe.org.uk
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.