From Adore's point of view one issue of importance is preemptive
commitment to a postulate.

     If you say things are bad, you have made a postulate, but if you
then go rip someone off BECAUSE 'things are bad', making things worse
for them, you have declared yourself an effect of your own postulate,
and committed effort to your postulate thus setting up a karma fence to
undoing it.

     Worse if you then open another postulate that says "People are
going to rip me off, so I had better rip them off first!", that leads to
a dwindling spiral for now those OTHERS will think the same thing about
you and try to rip you off first thus confirming your opening postulate.

     Probably the most dangerous thing you could say to anyone walking
around on the street is,

     "You want what you have, and you have what you want, and you have
it exactly and only because you want it."

     This will drive the zero responsibility for condition cases into an
outrage and frenzy which they will probably take out on you, trying to
get you to admit you are wrong in your assessment of them by admitting
it isn't true for you either!

     The issues of greed can be complex.

     For example someone writes a song and offers it for sale for a
price and a condition that you not copy it and hand it out to the world
via mp3 on usenet.

     So you agree, you have to or he won't sell it to you, but then you
proceed to copy and hand it out anyhow.

     Now its tempting to say well I paid his price, he has his money,
but in fact you only paid half his price, as the other half was a non
copy agreement.

      One can argue that the song is yours to do with as you please once
you buy it, but you didn't pay full price so you half ripped it off in
the first place, and the other half still says you can't copy it and
hand it out.

      Worse the artist isn't selling you the song outright, but leasing
its use to you, so by definition you can't copy the lease and hand it
out to others for free.

      If one says to hell with what the artist or software writer wants,
I *NEED* his product, and I can only pay so much and that's it, and I
will never agree to not copying even though I hit the I AGREE button
when I bought it, then that person is essentially acting in treason 24x7
in his fair market transactions.

      Without good faith transactions, eventually the market is
destroyed, or song writers start to license songs rather than sell them
and copying machines are made illegal, and policemen are put in every
bedroom, and we have a police state.

      All for the sake of protecting copyrights.

      Now people are free to negotiate whatever market sale terms they
want, and it is probably wise of them to NOT negotiate terms that they
know others will break and are unenforceable anyhow.

      But this does not justify the dwindling spiral of the buyer who
lives and breaths in treason with every market transaction he makes, (or
even just some of them), because he considers he won't survive on a good
faith behavior.

      Such a person has a fundamental postulate that he won't survive
satisfactorily if he keeps the promises that people demand of him, and
which he agrees to.

      Honor is the ability to make keep and trade fair chosen promises.

      Every time such a being makes a promise because he feels he has to,
in order to survive, which he can not keep, and intends in the making of
the promise not to keep it, he further postulates that the only way to
survive is through treason, and commits to it.

      A person running on the postulate 'The only way to survive is
through treason' is not very useful to society as a whole and in the end
will probably end up consuming more than he produces, ie become a
welfare case or an outright criminal.

      Criminal intent is basically the intent to cause an unwilling
market transaction through deceit or force.

      The last effort of a being trying to give is to take.

       That said however, need does not bestow right.


Heidrun Beer (hBeer@SGMT.AT) wrote:

>I understand now how you arrived where you are.

>You are right, it is not a fair society.

>Maybe you are also right that it will never be.
>But how do we know if we don't try?

>If each of us polished his or her own little puzzle piece
>of society as clean and shiny as possible, the whole
>puzzle would become clean and shiny.

>Not possible? Maybe. Not worth trying too?

>On Sat, 05 May 2007 12:42:42 GMT, wrote in

>>"Heidrun Beer"  wrote in message
>>> There is a spiritual side to all this. It is not only about
>>> money and overts and justifications etc. etc.-
>>> If somebody fries some eggs and says to me "I'll give you some
>>> if you give me a lock of your hair", I have the choice to
>>> take his eggs and give him my hair, or to keep my hair and
>>> eat something else.
>>> Creative spirits who write software want their creation to
>>> live into the future - this is why they ask for the energy
>>> (physical universe human energy = money) to ensure a future
>>> for their creation.
>>> It is a sign of spiritual competence to honor their wishes
>>> even if they can be brushed aside and invalidated apparently
>>> out of existence without immediate consequences.
>>I don't disagree with what you say but let me give you another reality
>>Except for when I was in childrens homes, which was a middle class type
>>thing I have lived my life with what you might call the scum of the earth.
>>What the middle and high classes wanted was for me to go into a factory (To
>>make plenty of money for them) have my yearly 2 weeks holiday, watch TV,
>>obey all the laws and so on, grow old and if I'm lucky get a presentation
>>clock when I am 65, then fuck off as I am no further use to them, Oh yes,
>>and keep my gob shut about any irregularities I might notice them doing.
>>They wanted a zombie.
>>Well I chose to work outside the system and I have met quite a few real bad
>>bastards in my time I can tell you.
>>These people don't have a social front like the higher classes do, upset em'
>>and they will stick a broken glass in your face.
>>Many are the nights and on into the morning I have had to mop the blood up
>>and clear up broken glass, the blood really pisses out when someone glasses
>>someone else across the neck, I've even had to clean it from the ceiling.
>>So what I am saying here is that really I couldn't give a fuck.
>>I rip off software, I rip off music and films all downloaded via the
>>internet, Thankyou.
>>You may think that maybe I am not a very nice person, well I couldn't give a
>>fuck about that either.
>>I have had a crap life, most of it a struggle all the way in poverty, I had
>>the shit kicked out of me nearly everyday as a child from so called
>>respectible middle class people because I wouldn't obey their stupid rules.
>>I have no guilt about ripping off software whatsoever and I will carry on
>>doing what I am doing.
>>And whats more I have in my possession, Windows Vista, cracked, with serial
>>We do not live in a fair society, nor will we ever.

>Heidrun Beer

>Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training

- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY    In the Line of Duty

Sat May  5 18:20:45 EDT 2007

================ ====================
Thu Aug 24 12:00:03 EDT 2017
Send mail to saying help in body
=========== ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

Thu Aug 24 17:39:06 EDT 2017