Just wanted to chip in and say while that fiction has produced the acceleration - which I assume you means for better wellbeing and more empowerment of people - I would agree. But at the same time, that fiction has also projected suffering. Poverty is a literal result of a society demanding everyone have money, and it comes from nowhere else, speaking of just the first world, here. What great good we may say it helps us reach, it in the same vein creates a ditch for people to fall in, which is absolutely unjustifiable. It is an idea that produces most of the irrational suffering people live through today, from living on this earth as a literal act of probation, to the various rackets we've beguiled people that they need to be havers and actors of.
Yes, again money has caused suffering; however, I think it's fair to ask where exactly would humanity be without that drive right now. The suffering of today was nowhere near the suffering of the past. I'm not saying this to downplay those suffering today because of money, but that fiction has incentivized us to do things that bring good to others than the bad imo. Obviously it's not perfect, and who knows how the idea of currency will evolve in the future, but for today, I would say it probably has had a net good effect. That said, at this point I realize this is just conjecture. I think we agree overall on this part, so I don't feel the need to be argumentative here anymore.
Again, this is over an idea that isn't even real, for it has no actual reality beyond the domain of thoughts and images. This is nothing but a mental shackle.
This is one of those problems where you ask 'what is real, and point out the efficacy of mathematics and some such other stuff. But as I said above, we don't have to argue on this point anymore.
I should explain clearer. I don't even think there's an "ought to do" here. It's just if we somehow come up with an action, it should at least be grounded in a way that is not disillusioned with weak, floaty projections, because those risk to be upheaved if they're incompatible. Man's ideals about labor and money are literally this: we say these are the goals of life, and in living this way destroy the earth which we consider separate from our goals. I hope you follow.
The bold is a moral call to action! That is the 'ought' I was talking about. I agree with you here, but that doesn't make it not a moral judgement.
The same point is true about actions we take to problems. We're hunting people who are the results of various things, because we're running with the unproven view that they're responsible, for they're a self. We're ignoring that it's not a fake self that's at fault but other things, whatever the hell they are, are the problem. We create conflict for we promote the idea of individual responsibility.
At minimum, if a person is called to be jailed for it's only logical that they would be responsible, as in directly causally related to the well being of others. This is a complex situation and I don't think it's nearly as cut and dry as you've presented it here.
As for innate, it's more of what it is of itself. Our problems are almost never "what is" but "what I think about it." This doesn't mean a kind of blind let it all flow thing, but that our spook is because we run more on ideas of our mind instead of just what happens of itself, we tend to be tripping over the world.
I think the issue here is that it is a 'let it flow thing as you say'. If you understand something to just be a certain way, there's no need to make a judgement. Once you make a judgment about it, you're invoking morality. So when you say:
If we're going to project anything onto the world, it needs to be accountable to what innately is so. This is why I made the distinction between bad and incorrect: bad is a feeling from the mind, incorrect in this sense is that it's beyond what we naturally know and can argue. These, at least in my post, were two different things.
Whether it's bad or incorrect, you're still calling for some action to be done because it would be considered the best way to do it. For what it's worth, I do agree with you here. I agree people project their own feelings onto situations, and what I say is: If you want to be
better or happier, you
ought to see the situation as it is.
For the prison thing, I thought I made it somewhat clear that we need to understand the mind and what results in those actions, and go from there. That should at least imply education, rehab, and various preventive measures. We attack the falsehoods so they don't become bought into and engraved in one's conditioning that leads to off kilter behavior.
In essence, this would seem like agree with mariolee. I don't know if the poster would accept it, but from my vantage point, you do agree with him.
Edit: This is a horrible way for me to spend a post drunken night out/ lazy afternoon lol.
" posts every time something bad happens. Stop being so self absorbed.