Laurentien said:
Monetary systems are, of course, delusional and therefore entropic: "stuff" is better. If you want something or a service, you should trade something or a service of equal value in exchange.
But is giving someone a chicken the same as giving someone a sculpture? Probably not, so some system of establishing value of time/goods has to be in place. It could be based on assessing not only the amount of time that goes into something, but the amount of skill - the time it took to acquire the skill -
and perhaps even a valuation placed on talent/ability which is sort of a cosmic element.
For me a valuation of talent sound a lot like a class system.
Did you watch "The Trap"? Do you realize that the ideas of "democracy" and "equality" - AS THEY ARE PROMULGATED - are a trap? A means of setting the stage for dog-eat-dog-no-gov-interference-capitalism?
See: http://dropout50394.yuku.com/topic/1287
I took "Political Science" in college, and what I learned there does not support the notion that modern "Conservatism", the kind that sucks up to corporations, is anything new. Actually, it derives from an early version of Liberalism.
Originally, as feudalism was dying, conservatives were people who supported the concept of an aristocracy with special rights but also special responsibilities, and liberals were people who wanted to overturn that system, having people regarded as intrinsically equal. These liberals, led primarily by an emerging non-noble merchant class who had become wealthier than the nobility and wanted respect for that achievement, basically won.
At this point, the early liberals just assumed that they were on the same side with people who were neither wealthy nor noble. But under the first draft of these liberal rules, inequalities remained and socialist critiques followed. It became noted that the classic liberal freedoms were in practice worthless to the poor, since while they could now exercise them without fear of government punishment, in practice they had to waive them to hold a job. The only difference between the old aristocracy and the new bourgeoisie was that the latter had a lesser sense of noblesse oblige.
A schism then developed. One branch, the classic liberals, clung to the original liberal values as moral axioms, no matter the pain to the poor. Another branch, the reform liberals, responded to socialist critiques by changing the goal to promulgation of effective freedom, and revising policy accordingly. Thus, they are willing to infringe theoretical freedoms, in order to increase the amount of effective freedom to the poor. Welfare is an example -- taxes on the rich get a few percent higher, but the poor hopefully get more freedom to not be prostitutes....
Today, "liberalism" now means reform liberalism. Modern "conservatism" is just an alliance between classic liberals and a separate political movement that has odd notions regarding non-economic issues. Modern people who like classic liberalism and don't like the other conservative baggage are "libertarians".
One annoying situation for (reform) liberals today is that many governments are shifting to a situation where the libertarians are the left and the conservatives are the right. In this situation, the left wing insists that it has "grown up" and accepted that welfare is infeasible, but still offers to fight for relative trivialities like gay rights. Then, you can choose whether to salute the GBLT lobby or salute the Church, but you can't choose not to salute the corporations.
It seems obvious to me that if we are trying to think of humanity as a body, that some parts of the body are crucial to the life of the body, while some parts can be removed with the body continuing to survive. It may not be optimal, but it is possible. That is also true in social structures.
As has also been pointed out - maybe you missed that part - it seems obvious that when all the parts of the body are aware that all the other parts ARE parts and have a contribution to make for OPTIMAL health, then all parts of the body will try to see that all other parts are served in the ways that optimize their function!
But yes, in the body, and in nature, there ARE classes, it just isn't what we have been taught to think of, nor should it be, and like everything else in our world, our ideas have been shaped for the benefit of pathologicals.
Laurentien said:
Let say that we create a new society where O.P (soulless)are muscle and bone and count for 50% of the population and the rest souled human. Now let say that we kill a cow to feed everyone, could someone tell me who get what. My idea, is that we make a big stew and every thing is share in equal quantity i.e. no one get the filet mignon because he or she is of "higher" standing.
I agree somewhat. I would suggest that if there are individuals in the tribe who have higher nutritional needs, they should get extra portions. Need determines apportionment of essentials of life. Pregnant and nursing women, the ill and elderly may have special and higher nutritional needs. Some people who perform very hard work may have higher nutritional needs. It is a fact that people who perform intellectual work have higher nutritional needs right along with those who perform hard physical labor. I sweat more and get exhausted faster researching and writing than I do working out in the gym.
So, it's not a class system as you are thinking, but definitely, there has to be classifications of people because it is NOT true that all people are created equal, though it IS true that all people are part of the body and have a right to having their basic needs met, even if that means that they benefit from the work of others and do little work themselves because they have neither the ability nor capacity.
A social structure based on needs is not a "class system" based on "ranking" as in "social class" as you are thinking.
Laurentien said:
You see I can not imagine a world where one is placed by it skill on a podium,
Nobody is talking about being placed on a podium though, certainly, there may be individuals in a society who hold a position of honor and centrality in the circle by virtue of their abilities and contribution to the whole group.
Again, think of a body... think of the brain, the eyes, the ears, the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, and so forth... they are not on a podium, but they play a central role in the survival of the rest of the body. And, of course, the limbs, bones, muscles, and so forth play a role too, but it is true that you could amputate the limbs and the rest of the body would survive... you can even remove SOME organs. But it is not a very nice way to survive and a good brain knows this and will do all it can to direct that every part of the body is properly cared for and nourished. After all, the organs are carried and fed by the limbs... with the hands having a very important role.
Laurentien said:
those who possess a soul should give the proper mirror image to the O.P and classifying the society may only enhance the division.
Why are you assuming that the classification is based on whether one is souled or not? That's not the issue though whether one is souled or not may have metaphorical relationship to whether one acts in the society as a brain or as a hand. But as I noted above, the hand is very important and it behooves the brain to take very good care of those hands, and every other part of the body as well.
Laurentien said:
The souled must realize that there goal is to move to the upper realm and to do so he doesn't need to be feed filet mignon, he must be a example.
Exactly. So, where did you get the idea that I was suggesting otherwise? Have you read all the posts in this thread? Have you been paying attention?
Laurentien said:
Soulless must be show the way and then realize what is the advantage of following it. If the soulless do not understand what a musician or a sculptor mean, he wouldn't trade a chicken for a piece of wood or a song after a thought day harvesting the field. He will keep the chicken and eat it.
That's not what we are talking about. We are talking about exchanges between people that result from economic surplus, AFTER everyone's basic needs are met.
Food, decent shelter that is equitably distributed/constructed, medical care and educational opportunity are the things that a good brain would ensure for its body. Every part of the body needs good nutrition, good rest, and training to function optimally for their own best life and the best life of the group. Finding what each individual does best and helping them to get set up to do it is also optimal for the body.
I've been doing some heavy reading on the topic and I'll have some ideas to share shortly (and hopefully, I'll have the bandwidth to do so soon!)
