Priorities

Each of you made really good points. I think things do need to change in hollywood and that people do need to see the world for what it is and not what it is protrayed as, but sadly some people aren't ready. I'll go as far and say anyone on this site, in this world, any one who ever walked this earth did not come out of the womb unspoiled and ready to see the world for what it really is. Insted of bashing the spoiled america and the famous, we should help show them their wrong and while doing this hope they won't be closed minded and see their wrong.

 

Yes good points Kris? and JWAM.

However JWAM there is something I want to pursue. Remember again I'm coming from fairly far out in left field with an idea, not just an idea but what I'm convinced is an important fact, that -- sorry to be arrogant and patronizing again -- I think is revolutionary to most people. I don't just want to change entertainment and america and religion and government but the way the whole world looks at things...

The thing I want to pursue is simply again that merit is an illusion that doesn't really exist. Merit is not a "fundamental entity." Merit is not "absolute" as some, many time oppressors and manipulators, wish it were. Merit is a translation or manifestation of one's own desires. What happens is one takes one's desires which are normally expressed in first person language and rephrases them in third person language so they appear to be objective rather than subjective and -- voila-- you have so-called "merit". For example when I have the emotion of revenge it's a case of "I want to hurt you" (first person expression) and this becomes changed into "You deserve punishment" (third person language embodying this new and artificial concept of "merit"). But it's really nothing more than the desire to hurt someone. This is all as easy as pie to understand and I'm sure you see what I'm saying.

Merit is a function of human desires. So concentrate on the desires that underlie claims of merit. Because human desires can be good or bad and you want to distinguish the positive from the negative. One doesn't want to be mislead or confused by the artificiality of "merit".

So it's not a question of what Metallica or Sol Diem "deserve" or "merit". It's just a matter of what your desires are with respect to them. And what others' desires are with respect to them. How much wealth and power do you want them to have or for anyone to have? Why do you want them or anyone to have or not have that much wealth or power? What are the reasons? Are they good reasons or bad reasons?

Obviously there are any number of factors that enter into answering these questions and I'm not going to get into all that. But I do want to say that it's much more than a matter of just "Hey anyone that talented deserves a million bucks" or "You deserve to die because you're a terrorist" or "Sinners deserve to go to hell because god loves justice". Don't think in terms of merit. Think in terms of desires and what you want to accomplish.

Another problem is that merit looks in the past. One is "rewarded" or "punished" for what one did. These are bad words, bad concepts leading to bad practices. What one wants to do is look to the future and think in terms of incentives and (only if unavoidable) disincentives.

BUT everything has to be done in the framework of morality. Morality again I define as actions taken in the interest of others and in consideration of equality. Think in terms of desires not merit. But think in terms of whether what you desire to accomplish is moral.

Sorry to go on so long but where does this leave us (or at least where does it leave me) with respect to entertainment?

Entertainment is valuable, enjoyable and can be inspiring. But I think most entertainers don't need much material incentive they like what they're doing. The excess of money that goes to entertainers should be more equitably -- more morally -- put to use. Entertainers will still enjoy excesses of power and fame but maybe through moral education and working on things the day will come when we will all be valued as the individuals we are and will be taken as celebrities in our own right.

 

Well, to veer off topic to the capitalism vs socialism debate...

What I desire, and what I find most morally acceptable and fair to all involved, is a fair capitalist system where one gets out of society services and resources comparable to what one gives to society. I do not think that socialism or communism is a fair or moral system because not everyone is equal in what they are willing or able to put into society, under a system of equally shared resources, many people will get more out of society than what they put in, their existance would be a drain on society, and while they are making society weaker others will be putting more into society than they are able to get out of it, society will be draining them.

Socialism and communism are neither moral or fair because they would waste resources on those who do not contribute as much as they take out, and they would do so at the expense of those who contribute the most to society. Not only would this system be unfair to the people who help society the most, but it would encourage everyone to contribute less to society, thus weakening society as a whole.

(if you want to continue the capitalism vs socialism debate, we should move it to a new thread so this one doesn't go any further off topic)

 

Yes, true aknowledgement of greatness on this planet is way out of balance. Simple diversions, hero worship, false god/godess worship (for beauty).

However, film and music is still an artform. I'm not going to denigrate art. After all, where would I be without Star Wars?

But yeah teachers are somewhat unsung aren't they?

 

I'm starting a Commie V Cap thread

 

JWAM what I would say is as follows.

Human beings function on the basis of desires and what we are all striving for is, well, what we are all striving for is Paradise. Probably not the end of desire but the continual fulfillment of continual desires. Satisfaction of the individual is the final common denominator and from a humanitarian and moral standpoint what I desire and what I hope others desire is that everyone be as satisfied as possible with the result of all people being equally and totally happy. What we ultimately want is Total Paradise For All. What we'll settle for in the meantime is a Partial But Equitable Paradise For All. We want what we want.

The problem in this world is that different individuals have tremendously different capacities to be happy, to makes themselves happy and to make others happy. These capacities can be equalized and augmented to some extent but there are definite and major limitations.

Most everyone if they could would like to be the most famous intelligent witty loved creative productive wealthy celebrity on earth dining with the beautiful people and on their way to the awards gala tonight but it's just not possible without intervention.

Some people can't even read or write or walk or talk and all the rest and it won't ever get any better.

It's not a matter of personal fault it's a matter of the way the genetic and environmental deck was dealt. It's a matter of causal factors.

But it's inhumane for one person to be very fulfilled and another to be miserable so the goal of a moral society is to try for everyone to have equal degrees of satisfaction.

As for some people being less able to contribute and a drain on society you can just shoot them that's the problem with what you're saying JWAM. Anything less drastic but that leaves the moral goal unobtained is still correspondingly immoral.

By all means there is a matter of incentive but this issue is totally exaggerated as a pretext by those who want to make sure they keep their hands on more than others. They sucker others into thinking in terms of merit. Many unfortunates are so brainwashed they'll voluntarily agree "Yes I deserve less it was my fault." Many creative people feel "I definitely deserve more" but they're thinking in terms of the myth of merit not in terms of reality. Mainly when they say that they're not thinking they're just feeling.

Creative people love what they do and they'll keep on doing it even without accolades. And you can offer a less fortunate person the crown jewels and there may be some improvement but your not going to get much out of tempting (or beating) a relatively dead horse. Yet all are "burdened by souls" as they used to say and suffer the pain of deprivation and inequality.

What's the "right" answer? The right answer is to study what really works to make the most people happy and wherever it fails to keep on working to make it better. It's just common sense. Corrupted communism did not work very well and neither does capitalism.

I don't care if you move the discussion and unfortunately even though my comments tend to be long I don't have that much time to contribute actually. I wish I could make my points in fewer words. I wish I had more time. This is what I really enjoy doing. Do you think I get any accolades or crown jewels?

One thing I did not say above -- people until they really think about this (there I go again) find it objectionable at least initially -- because they are used to and want to think in terms of merit wanting to have an excuse for giving some people less -- but it is one of the great truths of all time -- is that everyone always does the best they can and always did the best they could under the circumstances -- you have to accept that if you believe in causality -- and so in distributing the goods one morally should desire to give just as much to one as to another. And one should desire to give more to those who have less.

 

"No man no problem"
-Joseph Stalin