f



Playing with 3 variables "know", "need" and "can" and creating a simple model.

I will use 3 assumptions:
1st: I know what I need.
2nd: I know what I can.
3rd: In order to be in balance it is necessary that the 1st assumption
to be less or equal with the 2nd assumption.
Most of the problems seem to arise because what we can is less than
what we need and our "goal", "wish", "desire" "motivation", etc. is to
bring these 2 variables in balance.
The most important variable seems to be the "know" one
If what we know is incorrect, the achievement of our goals, motivation
will not bring the desired result, the balance.
Looking at the pursuit of happiness, and money, they can be easily
explained using the 3 variables.
Pursuit of happiness is a simple case where what I can is less than
what I need and happiness is what is missing for the 2 to be in
balance.
Money is the pure social expression of "can" and so whenever you feel
that you are unable to achieve balance you will try to increase the
amount of money.
But why are not all the rich people happy?
Maybe because the 1st assumption is incorrect and they do not really
know what they need, and in this case their goal, money, will not
bring them happiness,
So it looks that every time you feel unhappy, maybe you should try to
adjust what you know about what you need and what you can.
Using the same 3 variables one can look at socialism as a system that
tries to achieve the balance by decreasing the needs and the knowledge
in the first place and only after that by trying to increase the
capacities. Its main problem is that it tries to achieve and maintain
the balance at any cost.
Capitalism, on the other hand, is a system that is increasing the
needs and the knowledge and thus creates a continuous imbalance. By
doing this, capitalism is forcing innovation, new knowledge, in order
to increase the capacity and bring it back in balance.
Another way to look at this is an analogy with an equation where
"know" is the mathematical functions that brings the variables, "need"
and "can" into balance.
Most of the religions tend to do the same thing as the socialism,
maybe with the exception of the Buddhism, which is trying to increase
the individual knowledge of "need" and "can".
0
gms2004
6/5/2004 9:53:37 PM
comp.ai.philosophy 6718 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

18 Replies
431 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 41

gms2004@lycos.com (Just Playing) wrote in message news:<543191fc.0406051353.36f18d8c@posting.google.com>...
> I will use 3 assumptions:
> 1st: I know what I need.
> 2nd: I know what I can.
> 3rd: In order to be in balance it is necessary that the 1st assumption
> to be less or equal with the 2nd assumption.
> Most of the problems seem to arise because what we can is less than
> what we need and our "goal", "wish", "desire" "motivation", etc. is to
> bring these 2 variables in balance.
> The most important variable seems to be the "know" one
> If what we know is incorrect, the achievement of our goals, motivation
> will not bring the desired result, the balance.
> Looking at the pursuit of happiness, and money, they can be easily
> explained using the 3 variables.
> Pursuit of happiness is a simple case where what I can is less than
> what I need and happiness is what is missing for the 2 to be in
> balance.
> Money is the pure social expression of "can" and so whenever you feel
> that you are unable to achieve balance you will try to increase the
> amount of money.
> But why are not all the rich people happy?
> Maybe because the 1st assumption is incorrect and they do not really
> know what they need, and in this case their goal, money, will not
> bring them happiness,
> So it looks that every time you feel unhappy, maybe you should try to
> adjust what you know about what you need and what you can.
> Using the same 3 variables one can look at socialism as a system that
> tries to achieve the balance by decreasing the needs and the knowledge
> in the first place and only after that by trying to increase the
> capacities. Its main problem is that it tries to achieve and maintain
> the balance at any cost.
> Capitalism, on the other hand, is a system that is increasing the
> needs and the knowledge and thus creates a continuous imbalance. By
> doing this, capitalism is forcing innovation, new knowledge, in order
> to increase the capacity and bring it back in balance.
> Another way to look at this is an analogy with an equation where
> "know" is the mathematical functions that brings the variables, "need"
> and "can" into balance.
> Most of the religions tend to do the same thing as the socialism,
> maybe with the exception of the Buddhism, which is trying to increase
> the individual knowledge of "need" and "can".



Now let's just look what happens when a new "need" arrives, when I
become "aware" of something new.
It is a daily phenomenon as a result of the advertising of new
products.
The natural tendency it to achieve the new product, to assimilate it
as a need, and as long as I can, I have the means to do it, everything
seems to be in balance.
It may be even a positive thing whenever I have an excess of money,
capacity, etc as it can be seen from the large number of bored rich
people that spent their time shopping. They are actually just trying
to bring in balance the "need" and "can".
But whenever I do not have the money, the means to achieve the new
product, I will try to maintain the balance by ignoring the product
(not acknowledging), by not including it in my "needs", or by trying
to obtain the money, means to acquire the new product.
And meantime I am in imbalance and I have a lot of negative feelings,
sensations, emotions, etc.
0
gms2004
6/6/2004 9:37:13 PM
> > I will use 3 assumptions:
> > 1st: I know what I need.
> > 2nd: I know what I can.
> > 3rd: In order to be in balance it is necessary that the 1st assumption
> > to be less or equal with the 2nd assumption.
> > Most of the problems seem to arise because what we can is less than
> > what we need and our "goal", "wish", "desire" "motivation", etc. is to
> > bring these 2 variables in balance.

Yes, very good. We try to explain the outcome in terms of what we know.
Are we explaining the outcome or describing it, when we use terms such as
'goals', etc?
The question must arise, 'do we need to know the means by which we can
acheive something in order to acheive it?

JJ


Just Playing <gms2004@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:543191fc.0406061337.33a9837f@posting.google.com...
> gms2004@lycos.com (Just Playing) wrote in message
news:<543191fc.0406051353.36f18d8c@posting.google.com>...
> > I will use 3 assumptions:
> > 1st: I know what I need.
> > 2nd: I know what I can.
> > 3rd: In order to be in balance it is necessary that the 1st assumption
> > to be less or equal with the 2nd assumption.
> > Most of the problems seem to arise because what we can is less than
> > what we need and our "goal", "wish", "desire" "motivation", etc. is to
> > bring these 2 variables in balance.
> > The most important variable seems to be the "know" one
> > If what we know is incorrect, the achievement of our goals, motivation
> > will not bring the desired result, the balance.
> > Looking at the pursuit of happiness, and money, they can be easily
> > explained using the 3 variables.
> > Pursuit of happiness is a simple case where what I can is less than
> > what I need and happiness is what is missing for the 2 to be in
> > balance.
> > Money is the pure social expression of "can" and so whenever you feel
> > that you are unable to achieve balance you will try to increase the
> > amount of money.
> > But why are not all the rich people happy?
> > Maybe because the 1st assumption is incorrect and they do not really
> > know what they need, and in this case their goal, money, will not
> > bring them happiness,
> > So it looks that every time you feel unhappy, maybe you should try to
> > adjust what you know about what you need and what you can.
> > Using the same 3 variables one can look at socialism as a system that
> > tries to achieve the balance by decreasing the needs and the knowledge
> > in the first place and only after that by trying to increase the
> > capacities. Its main problem is that it tries to achieve and maintain
> > the balance at any cost.
> > Capitalism, on the other hand, is a system that is increasing the
> > needs and the knowledge and thus creates a continuous imbalance. By
> > doing this, capitalism is forcing innovation, new knowledge, in order
> > to increase the capacity and bring it back in balance.
> > Another way to look at this is an analogy with an equation where
> > "know" is the mathematical functions that brings the variables, "need"
> > and "can" into balance.
> > Most of the religions tend to do the same thing as the socialism,
> > maybe with the exception of the Buddhism, which is trying to increase
> > the individual knowledge of "need" and "can".
>
>
>
> Now let's just look what happens when a new "need" arrives, when I
> become "aware" of something new.
> It is a daily phenomenon as a result of the advertising of new
> products.
> The natural tendency it to achieve the new product, to assimilate it
> as a need, and as long as I can, I have the means to do it, everything
> seems to be in balance.
> It may be even a positive thing whenever I have an excess of money,
> capacity, etc as it can be seen from the large number of bored rich
> people that spent their time shopping. They are actually just trying
> to bring in balance the "need" and "can".
> But whenever I do not have the money, the means to achieve the new
> product, I will try to maintain the balance by ignoring the product
> (not acknowledging), by not including it in my "needs", or by trying
> to obtain the money, means to acquire the new product.
> And meantime I am in imbalance and I have a lot of negative feelings,
> sensations, emotions, etc.


0
John
6/6/2004 11:29:34 PM
gms2004@lycos.com (Just Playing) wrote in message news:<543191fc.0406051353.36f18d8c@posting.google.com>...
> I will use 3 assumptions:
> 1st: I know what I need.
> 2nd: I know what I can.
> 3rd: In order to be in balance it is necessary that the 1st assumption
> to be less or equal with the 2nd assumption.
> Most of the problems seem to arise because what we can is less than
> what we need and our "goal", "wish", "desire" "motivation", etc. is to
> bring these 2 variables in balance.
> The most important variable seems to be the "know" one
> If what we know is incorrect, the achievement of our goals, motivation
> will not bring the desired result, the balance.
> Looking at the pursuit of happiness, and money, they can be easily
> explained using the 3 variables.
> Pursuit of happiness is a simple case where what I can is less than
> what I need and happiness is what is missing for the 2 to be in
> balance.
> Money is the pure social expression of "can" and so whenever you feel
> that you are unable to achieve balance you will try to increase the
> amount of money.
> But why are not all the rich people happy?
> Maybe because the 1st assumption is incorrect and they do not really
> know what they need, and in this case their goal, money, will not
> bring them happiness,
> So it looks that every time you feel unhappy, maybe you should try to
> adjust what you know about what you need and what you can.
> Using the same 3 variables one can look at socialism as a system that
> tries to achieve the balance by decreasing the needs and the knowledge
> in the first place and only after that by trying to increase the
> capacities. Its main problem is that it tries to achieve and maintain
> the balance at any cost.
> Capitalism, on the other hand, is a system that is increasing the
> needs and the knowledge and thus creates a continuous imbalance. By
> doing this, capitalism is forcing innovation, new knowledge, in order
> to increase the capacity and bring it back in balance.
> Another way to look at this is an analogy with an equation where
> "know" is the mathematical functions that brings the variables, "need"
> and "can" into balance.
> Most of the religions tend to do the same thing as the socialism,
> maybe with the exception of the Buddhism, which is trying to increase
> the individual knowledge of "need" and "can".

Not bad for a simple model, but totally inadequate for "real" life.

There is a difference between "need" and "want".
There is a difference between "know" and "think you know".
There is a difference between "can" and "willing to pay the price". 
There is a difference between "can't" and "don't want to".

On the other hand, your "simple model" works surprisingly well when
applied to socialism, capitalism, and religion. Marx may have known a
lot about econimics, but he had a naive view of human nature.
Capitalism has a cynical view of human nature, but it works because a
lot of humans are naturally cynical. Religion, on the other hand,
attempts to change human nature.

Perhaps unhappiness, or dissonence is an important part of what makes
us human. Everybody says that they want to become happy; but as soon
as they do, they complain or boredom. I don't think that happiness is
about what you have; it's about what you hope to get. If you think
that the future will be better than the past, you feel good. If things
appear to be going down hill in your life, you tend to get depressed.
At least that has been my experience.
0
talkswithbeagles
6/7/2004 12:53:57 AM
talkswithbeagles@nmo.net (Talks With Beagles) wrote in message news:<40d2ba3.0406061653.51cb74a6@posting.google.com>...
> Perhaps unhappiness, or dissonence is an important part of what makes
> us human. Everybody says that they want to become happy; but as soon
> as they do, they complain or boredom. I don't think that happiness is
> about what you have; it's about what you hope to get. If you think
> that the future will be better than the past, you feel good. If things
> appear to be going down hill in your life, you tend to get depressed.
> At least that has been my experience.

Strange as it may seem, not everyone wants to become happy.  I mean this
in at least two ways.  Some want to remain happy.  Some just have different
goals.

If one focuses upon what one has or hopes to have when defining happiness
one is doomed, especially if one focuses on delta.  There is happiness
in giving to others if one wishes it.  Imagine the burden you are placing
on others who get joy from seeing joy in others if yours fades quickly
after getting things and you get joy only from getting things.  Now
imagine lifting that burden from them by being happy with what you have.

There's something really perverse about the U.S. psyche in that many
are such as you describe.  They don't seem to care that the things
they consume are being produced by others who are working to achieve
sustenance level existence.

A society of happiness is much easier to achieve and maintain when
its members achieve happiness from seeing it in others because an
act of kindness by one affects everyone positively.

It's too bad that selfish people see selfishness as human nature
when the reality is it is but one extreme of a vector describing
human nature.  Where one resides along this vector is a personal
choice.
0
forbisgaryg
6/7/2004 1:14:03 PM
talkswithbeagles@nmo.net (Talks With Beagles) wrote in message news:<40d2ba3.0406061653.51cb74a6@posting.google.com>...

Just playing answers

There is a difference between "need" and "want". 
Actually  "want" can be defined as a "known, acknowledged need".

There is a difference between "know" and "think you know". 
At the individual level everything is "think you know", and only the
fact that you are in imbalance makes you try to "know" more.

There is a difference between "can" and "willing to pay the price". 
If you "can" and you are not "willing to pay the price" it is because
you do not acknowledge that something as a "need". Otherwise you are
not "wiling to pay the price" because you "can�t".

There is a difference between "can't" and "don't want to". 
"Can" implies capacity, means. money while "want" implies "know'.
 So if I "can't" it is because I do not have the means while if I
"don't want to"  means that I do not acknowlledge that particular
issue as a need.


Just playing
> gms2004@lycos.com (Just Playing) wrote in message 
news:<543191fc.0406051353.36f18d8c@posting.google.com>...
> > I will use 3 assumptions:
> > 1st: I know what I need.
> > 2nd: I know what I can.
> > 3rd: In order to be in balance it is necessary that the 1st assumption
> > to be less or equal with the 2nd assumption.
> > Most of the problems seem to arise because what we can is less than
> > what we need and our "goal", "wish", "desire" "motivation", etc. is to
> > bring these 2 variables in balance.
> > The most important variable seems to be the "know" one
> > If what we know is incorrect, the achievement of our goals, motivation
> > will not bring the desired result, the balance.
> > Looking at the pursuit of happiness, and money, they can be easily
> > explained using the 3 variables.
> > Pursuit of happiness is a simple case where what I can is less than
> > what I need and happiness is what is missing for the 2 to be in
> > balance.
> > Money is the pure social expression of "can" and so whenever you feel
> > that you are unable to achieve balance you will try to increase the
> > amount of money.
> > But why are not all the rich people happy?
> > Maybe because the 1st assumption is incorrect and they do not really
> > know what they need, and in this case their goal, money, will not
> > bring them happiness,
> > So it looks that every time you feel unhappy, maybe you should try to
> > adjust what you know about what you need and what you can.
> > Using the same 3 variables one can look at socialism as a system that
> > tries to achieve the balance by decreasing the needs and the knowledge
> > in the first place and only after that by trying to increase the
> > capacities. Its main problem is that it tries to achieve and maintain
> > the balance at any cost.
> > Capitalism, on the other hand, is a system that is increasing the
> > needs and the knowledge and thus creates a continuous imbalance. By
> > doing this, capitalism is forcing innovation, new knowledge, in order
> > to increase the capacity and bring it back in balance.
> > Another way to look at this is an analogy with an equation where
> > "know" is the mathematical functions that brings the variables, "need"
> > and "can" into balance.
> > Most of the religions tend to do the same thing as the socialism,
> > maybe with the exception of the Buddhism, which is trying to increase
> > the individual knowledge of "need" and "can".
> 
> Not bad for a simple model, but totally inadequate for "real" life.
> 
> There is a difference between "need" and "want".
> There is a difference between "know" and "think you know".
> There is a difference between "can" and "willing to pay the price". 
> There is a difference between "can't" and "don't want to".
> 
> On the other hand, your "simple model" works surprisingly well when
> applied to socialism, capitalism, and religion. Marx may have known a
> lot about econimics, but he had a naive view of human nature.
> Capitalism has a cynical view of human nature, but it works because a
> lot of humans are naturally cynical. Religion, on the other hand,
> attempts to change human nature.
> 
> Perhaps unhappiness, or dissonence is an important part of what makes
> us human. Everybody says that they want to become happy; but as soon
> as they do, they complain or boredom. I don't think that happiness is
> about what you have; it's about what you hope to get. If you think
> that the future will be better than the past, you feel good. If things
> appear to be going down hill in your life, you tend to get depressed.
> At least that has been my experience.
0
gms2004
6/7/2004 1:45:23 PM
"John Jones" <jiversjivers@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<ca09ct$hgp$1@titan.btinternet.com>...
> > > I will use 3 assumptions:
> > > 1st: I know what I need.
> > > 2nd: I know what I can.
> > > 3rd: In order to be in balance it is necessary that the 1st assumption
> > > to be less or equal with the 2nd assumption.
> > > Most of the problems seem to arise because what we can is less than
> > > what we need and our "goal", "wish", "desire" "motivation", etc. is to
> > > bring these 2 variables in balance.
> 
> Yes, very good. We try to explain the outcome in terms of what we know.
> Are we explaining the outcome or describing it, when we use terms such as
> 'goals', etc?
> The question must arise, 'do we need to know the means by which we can
> acheive something in order to acheive it?
> 
> JJ
Just playing answers
> 
Actually by "goal" I understand the part that is missing for the 2
assumptions to be in balance, or the unknown variable, "x" in an
equation.
It is called "goal", "motivation" or whatever other term, but it
appears only when there is an imbalance or the equation cannot be
solved without a new term, variable.

Just Playing 


> Just Playing <gms2004@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:543191fc.0406061337.33a9837f@posting.google.com...
> > gms2004@lycos.com (Just Playing) wrote in message
>  news:<543191fc.0406051353.36f18d8c@posting.google.com>...
> > > I will use 3 assumptions:
> > > 1st: I know what I need.
> > > 2nd: I know what I can.
> > > 3rd: In order to be in balance it is necessary that the 1st assumption
> > > to be less or equal with the 2nd assumption.
> > > Most of the problems seem to arise because what we can is less than
> > > what we need and our "goal", "wish", "desire" "motivation", etc. is to
> > > bring these 2 variables in balance.
> > > The most important variable seems to be the "know" one
> > > If what we know is incorrect, the achievement of our goals, motivation
> > > will not bring the desired result, the balance.
> > > Looking at the pursuit of happiness, and money, they can be easily
> > > explained using the 3 variables.
> > > Pursuit of happiness is a simple case where what I can is less than
> > > what I need and happiness is what is missing for the 2 to be in
> > > balance.
> > > Money is the pure social expression of "can" and so whenever you feel
> > > that you are unable to achieve balance you will try to increase the
> > > amount of money.
> > > But why are not all the rich people happy?
> > > Maybe because the 1st assumption is incorrect and they do not really
> > > know what they need, and in this case their goal, money, will not
> > > bring them happiness,
> > > So it looks that every time you feel unhappy, maybe you should try to
> > > adjust what you know about what you need and what you can.
> > > Using the same 3 variables one can look at socialism as a system that
> > > tries to achieve the balance by decreasing the needs and the knowledge
> > > in the first place and only after that by trying to increase the
> > > capacities. Its main problem is that it tries to achieve and maintain
> > > the balance at any cost.
> > > Capitalism, on the other hand, is a system that is increasing the
> > > needs and the knowledge and thus creates a continuous imbalance. By
> > > doing this, capitalism is forcing innovation, new knowledge, in order
> > > to increase the capacity and bring it back in balance.
> > > Another way to look at this is an analogy with an equation where
> > > "know" is the mathematical functions that brings the variables, "need"
> > > and "can" into balance.
> > > Most of the religions tend to do the same thing as the socialism,
> > > maybe with the exception of the Buddhism, which is trying to increase
> > > the individual knowledge of "need" and "can".
> >
> >
> >
> > Now let's just look what happens when a new "need" arrives, when I
> > become "aware" of something new.
> > It is a daily phenomenon as a result of the advertising of new
> > products.
> > The natural tendency it to achieve the new product, to assimilate it
> > as a need, and as long as I can, I have the means to do it, everything
> > seems to be in balance.
> > It may be even a positive thing whenever I have an excess of money,
> > capacity, etc as it can be seen from the large number of bored rich
> > people that spent their time shopping. They are actually just trying
> > to bring in balance the "need" and "can".
> > But whenever I do not have the money, the means to achieve the new
> > product, I will try to maintain the balance by ignoring the product
> > (not acknowledging), by not including it in my "needs", or by trying
> > to obtain the money, means to acquire the new product.
> > And meantime I am in imbalance and I have a lot of negative feelings,
> > sensations, emotions, etc.
0
gms2004
6/7/2004 1:52:20 PM
gms2004@lycos.com (Just Playing) wrote in message news:<543191fc.0406070545.c50c3d6@posting.google.com>...
> talkswithbeagles@nmo.net (Talks With Beagles) wrote in message news:<40d2ba3.0406061653.51cb74a6@posting.google.com>...
> 
> Just playing answers
> 
> There is a difference between "need" and "want". 
> Actually  "want" can be defined as a "known, acknowledged need".

I need to eat, but I don't need to eat meat. Lots of people don't eat
meat and they seem to be content with that. I eat meat because I want
to, not because I need to.
 
> There is a difference between "know" and "think you know". 
> At the individual level everything is "think you know", and only the
> fact that you are in imbalance makes you try to "know" more.

Of course, we can never be completely certain of everything that we
think we know. Nevertheless, being wrong about something important can
get you into big trouble. All of my life I have been curious about
things that I didn't really need to know about. Like Auggie's
grandmother used to say; "It's good even if you never use it." From
time to time, people have referred to me as "unbalanced". I never knew
what they were talking about until now. So now I know something that I
didn't know before, and probably didn't need to know in the first
place. Thank you very much!
 
> There is a difference between "can" and "willing to pay the price". 
> If you "can" and you are not "willing to pay the price" it is because
> you do not acknowledge that something as a "need". Otherwise you are
> not "wiling to pay the price" because you "can?t".

I have about $20,000 worth of equipment which I bought over the years
to work an $8,000 piece of land. I cannot afford to farm for a living,
so I do this for fun. With that same money, I could have bought a nice
boat, but I didn't. Truth be known, I didn't need either the boat or
the land. Lots of people are perfectly content to own neither one.
Even though they may be able to afford it, they choose to put their
money somewhere else. You too could someday live in the swamp with a
dysfunctional dog. Are you willing to pay the price?
 
> There is a difference between "can't" and "don't want to". 
> "Can" implies capacity, means. money while "want" implies "know'.
>  So if I "can't" it is because I do not have the means while if I
> "don't want to"  means that I do not acknowlledge that particular
> issue as a need.

We seem to have come full circle here. There are lots of things that
people can do, but choose not to. If you want to do something badly
enough, you can usually find the means to do it. It may take a few
years, and you will have to give up other things that you don't want
as much. If you are able to give these things up it means that you
never needed them in the first place, even if other people seem to
think that they know what you need.
0
talkswithbeagles
6/8/2004 1:35:42 AM
forbisgaryg@msn.com (Gary Forbis) wrote in message news:<5a1238fe.0406070514.429f61c9@posting.google.com>...
> talkswithbeagles@nmo.net (Talks With Beagles) wrote in message news:<40d2ba3.0406061653.51cb74a6@posting.google.com>...
> > Perhaps unhappiness, or dissonence is an important part of what makes
> > us human. Everybody says that they want to become happy; but as soon
> > as they do, they complain or boredom. I don't think that happiness is
> > about what you have; it's about what you hope to get. If you think
> > that the future will be better than the past, you feel good. If things
> > appear to be going down hill in your life, you tend to get depressed.
> > At least that has been my experience.
> 
> Strange as it may seem, not everyone wants to become happy.  I mean this
> in at least two ways.  Some want to remain happy.  Some just have different
> goals.
> 
> If one focuses upon what one has or hopes to have when defining happiness
> one is doomed, especially if one focuses on delta.  There is happiness
> in giving to others if one wishes it.  Imagine the burden you are placing
> on others who get joy from seeing joy in others if yours fades quickly
> after getting things and you get joy only from getting things.  Now
> imagine lifting that burden from them by being happy with what you have.
> 
> There's something really perverse about the U.S. psyche in that many
> are such as you describe.  They don't seem to care that the things
> they consume are being produced by others who are working to achieve
> sustenance level existence.
> 
> A society of happiness is much easier to achieve and maintain when
> its members achieve happiness from seeing it in others because an
> act of kindness by one affects everyone positively.
> 
> It's too bad that selfish people see selfishness as human nature
> when the reality is it is but one extreme of a vector describing
> human nature.  Where one resides along this vector is a personal
> choice.

I did not mean to imply that material goods were the sole source of
happiness. It's just that was what we seemed to be talking about at
the time. I think that this was the biggest mistake of Marxism. Marx
percieved that all the troubles in the world were caused by the
unequal distrubution of wealth. Truth be known, if everybody had the
same amount of stuff many of them would still be unhappy. Some of them
would want more stuff than others; and others would want things that
weren't on the list, like freedom.

I think that it is human nature to want more stuff than you have. This
probably comes from the fact that our stone age ancestors never had
enough of anything. The last glacial age provided the impetus to lay
up stores in abundance because you never know what kind of winter
you're going to have this year.

Just because something is natural, however, doesn't mean that you have
to do it. In my last post, I said that religion attempts to change
human nature. A more appropriate word than "change" would have been
"transcend". The same thing could be said about philosophy or any
other organized body of thought. Man is about the only animal I know
that can make a conscious, deliberate decision to do something against
his own nature. The question is not "Can we", it is "Do we want to,
and are we willing to pay the price?"
0
talkswithbeagles
6/8/2004 1:54:54 AM
talkswithbeagles@nmo.net (Talks With Beagles) wrote in message news:<40d2ba3.0406071735.17fdb90b@posting.google.com>...
> gms2004@lycos.com (Just Playing) wrote in message news:<543191fc.0406070545.c50c3d6@posting.google.com>...
> > talkswithbeagles@nmo.net (Talks With Beagles) wrote in message news:<40d2ba3.0406061653.51cb74a6@posting.google.com>...
> > 
> > Just playing answers
> > 
> > There is a difference between "need" and "want". 
> > Actually  "want" can be defined as a "known, acknowledged need".
> 
> I need to eat, but I don't need to eat meat. Lots of people don't eat
> meat and they seem to be content with that. I eat meat because I want
> to, not because I need to.
>  
> > There is a difference between "know" and "think you know". 
> > At the individual level everything is "think you know", and only the
> > fact that you are in imbalance makes you try to "know" more.
> 
> Of course, we can never be completely certain of everything that we
> think we know. Nevertheless, being wrong about something important can
> get you into big trouble. All of my life I have been curious about
> things that I didn't really need to know about. Like Auggie's
> grandmother used to say; "It's good even if you never use it." From
> time to time, people have referred to me as "unbalanced". I never knew
> what they were talking about until now. So now I know something that I
> didn't know before, and probably didn't need to know in the first
> place. Thank you very much!
>  
> > There is a difference between "can" and "willing to pay the price". 
> > If you "can" and you are not "willing to pay the price" it is because
> > you do not acknowledge that something as a "need". Otherwise you are
> > not "wiling to pay the price" because you "can?t".
> 
> I have about $20,000 worth of equipment which I bought over the years
> to work an $8,000 piece of land. I cannot afford to farm for a living,
> so I do this for fun. With that same money, I could have bought a nice
> boat, but I didn't. Truth be known, I didn't need either the boat or
> the land. Lots of people are perfectly content to own neither one.
> Even though they may be able to afford it, they choose to put their
> money somewhere else. You too could someday live in the swamp with a
> dysfunctional dog. Are you willing to pay the price?
>  
> > There is a difference between "can't" and "don't want to". 
> > "Can" implies capacity, means. money while "want" implies "know'.
> >  So if I "can't" it is because I do not have the means while if I
> > "don't want to"  means that I do not acknowlledge that particular
> > issue as a need.
> 
> We seem to have come full circle here. There are lots of things that
> people can do, but choose not to. If you want to do something badly
> enough, you can usually find the means to do it. It may take a few
> years, and you will have to give up other things that you don't want
> as much. If you are able to give these things up it means that you
> never needed them in the first place, even if other people seem to
> think that they know what you need.

Just Playing:

I just keep on playing
It is a very simple model but it is fun to play with it.

"Need" and "can" are very loose terms in this model, and anything that
brings you something positive, something you appreciate, just like fun
or eating meat is included in the "need" column.
You take some other people's definition of "need" and apply it in your
case and find that you are not acting rationally.
The model does not look at the rationality as organizing structure but
at "balance". And someone is in balance whenever he/she "feels good".

"There are lots of things that people can do, but choose not to."
Exactly, because they do not need them. They are in balance without
doing them.

"If you want to do something badly enough, you can usually find the
means to do it"
You are not in balance so you work hard to improve your knowledge or
increase your means, "can".

"It may take a few years, and you will have to give up other things
that you don't want as much."
"If you are able to give these things up it means that you never
needed them in the first place, even if other people seem to think
that they know what you need."
You adjust your knowledge of your needs so to be again in balance.

The model gets more and more complicated but somehow you are able to
reduce most of the human behavior to the 3 variables.

Just Playing
0
gms2004
6/8/2004 2:55:13 PM
talkswithbeagles@nmo.net (Talks With Beagles) wrote in message news:<40d2ba3.0406071754.7e7ed92b@posting.google.com>...

> I did not mean to imply that material goods were the sole source of
> happiness. It's just that was what we seemed to be talking about at
> the time. I think that this was the biggest mistake of Marxism. Marx
> percieved that all the troubles in the world were caused by the
> unequal distrubution of wealth.

I don't think Marx said anything as simplistic as that.

> Truth be known, if everybody had the
> same amount of stuff many of them would still be unhappy. Some of them
> would want more stuff than others; and others would want things that
> weren't on the list, like freedom.

Studies have shown that a good standard of living satisfies most
people. I think that people that think that they have control over
their life situation are the most happy.

-- 
    Ron
0
ron
6/8/2004 4:00:08 PM
ron@shell.core.com (Ron Peterson) wrote in message news:<b2f196ff.0406080800.26c295a5@posting.google.com>...
> talkswithbeagles@nmo.net (Talks With Beagles) wrote in message news:<40d2ba3.0406071754.7e7ed92b@posting.google.com>...
> 
> > I did not mean to imply that material goods were the sole source of
> > happiness. It's just that was what we seemed to be talking about at
> > the time. I think that this was the biggest mistake of Marxism. Marx
> > percieved that all the troubles in the world were caused by the
> > unequal distrubution of wealth.
> 
> I don't think Marx said anything as simplistic as that.
> 
> > Truth be known, if everybody had the
> > same amount of stuff many of them would still be unhappy. Some of them
> > would want more stuff than others; and others would want things that
> > weren't on the list, like freedom.
> 
> Studies have shown that a good standard of living satisfies most
> people. I think that people that think that they have control over
> their life situation are the most happy.


Just Playing

If I replace "know" with "control", where control is what brings the
"need" and "can" in balance we talk about the same model.
0
gms2004
6/8/2004 10:29:06 PM
gms2004@lycos.com (Just Playing) wrote in message news:<543191fc.0406080655.7225a1f6@posting.google.com>...
 
> > > There is a difference between "need" and "want". 
> > > Actually  "want" can be defined as a "known, acknowledged need".
 
> Just Playing:
> 
> I just keep on playing
> It is a very simple model but it is fun to play with it.
> 
> "Need" and "can" are very loose terms in this model, and anything that
> brings you something positive, something you appreciate, just like fun
> or eating meat is included in the "need" column.
> You take some other people's definition of "need" and apply it in your
> case and find that you are not acting rationally.
> The model does not look at the rationality as organizing structure but
> at "balance". And someone is in balance whenever he/she "feels good".
> 
> "There are lots of things that people can do, but choose not to."
> Exactly, because they do not need them. They are in balance without
> doing them.
> 
> "If you want to do something badly enough, you can usually find the
> means to do it"
> You are not in balance so you work hard to improve your knowledge or
> increase your means, "can".
> 
> "It may take a few years, and you will have to give up other things
> that you don't want as much."
> "If you are able to give these things up it means that you never
> needed them in the first place, even if other people seem to think
> that they know what you need."
> You adjust your knowledge of your needs so to be again in balance.
> 
> The model gets more and more complicated but somehow you are able to
> reduce most of the human behavior to the 3 variables.
> 
> Just Playing

Okay, I think I've got it now. When you say "need", you mean "need it
to become happy", not "need it to survive". When you say "balance" you
mean "You are happy when you have the things you need to make you
happy.", not "You are unbalanced because you don't want the same
things that I do." When you put it that way, your model makes a lot
more sense.

This brings us back to the "knowing" part. How do people know what
they need to make them happy? Would they be just as happy if they
didn't know that the thing existed? It never ceases to amaze me that
people think they need lots of things that weren't invented a few
years ago. If it is so important, how did everybody get by without it
for all those years? Of course, not every new invention is useless;
but if you buy something that you don't need, it means that you have
less money left to buy the things that you do need.
0
talkswithbeagles
6/9/2004 1:57:04 AM
ron@shell.core.com (Ron Peterson) wrote in message news:<b2f196ff.0406080800.26c295a5@posting.google.com>...
> talkswithbeagles@nmo.net (Talks With Beagles) wrote in message news:<40d2ba3.0406071754.7e7ed92b@posting.google.com>...
> 
> > I did not mean to imply that material goods were the sole source of
> > happiness. It's just that was what we seemed to be talking about at
> > the time. I think that this was the biggest mistake of Marxism. Marx
> > percieved that all the troubles in the world were caused by the
> > unequal distrubution of wealth.
> 
> I don't think Marx said anything as simplistic as that.

It's been along time since I read Marx, but I seem to remember
something about "dialectic materialism". Of course I was
oversimplifying; I do that a lot. One of my missions in life is to
take complicated things and try to make sense out of them. This is
just the opposite of what professional philosophers do, which is why
they get paid and I don't.
> 
> > Truth be known, if everybody had the
> > same amount of stuff many of them would still be unhappy. Some of them
> > would want more stuff than others; and others would want things that
> > weren't on the list, like freedom.
> 
> Studies have shown that a good standard of living satisfies most
> people. I think that people that think that they have control over
> their life situation are the most happy.

People who have a poor standard of living say that they would be
satisfied with a good one. People who have a good standard of living
say that they would be satisfied with a better one. It's all relative.
My relatives all wanted me to have a better standard of living than
they had. It never occured to them that I might want something
different. In those days, voluntary simplicity was unheard of in my
neighborhood.

I agree with you about the control part. Many people, however, want to
control everybody else's life situation in addition to their own.
Maybe they think that everybody else is an integral part of their own
situation, but I never bought into that.
0
talkswithbeagles
6/9/2004 2:18:49 AM
talkswithbeagles@nmo.net (Talks With Beagles) wrote in message news:<40d2ba3.0406061653.51cb74a6@posting.google.com>...


> Not bad for a simple model, but totally inadequate for "real" life.
> 
> There is a difference between "need" and "want".
> There is a difference between "know" and "think you know".
> There is a difference between "can" and "willing to pay the price". 
> There is a difference between "can't" and "don't want to".
> 
> On the other hand, your "simple model" works surprisingly well when
> applied to socialism, capitalism, and religion. 


You might want to take a look at "Beyond Freedom + Dignity" for a
further exposition of the thinking.
============= 


> Perhaps unhappiness, or dissonence is an important part of what makes
> us human. Everybody says that they want to become happy; but as soon
> as they do, they complain or boredom. I don't think that happiness is
> about what you have; it's about what you hope to get. If you think
> that the future will be better than the past, you feel good. If things
> appear to be going down hill in your life, you tend to get depressed.
> At least that has been my experience.


BTW, I couldn't help but notice your moniker ... TWB. 

You might be interested [or not] in a new book I saw reviewed in this
week's newspaper ... "If You Tame Me: Understanding Our Connection
with Animals", by Leslie Irvine, a prof of sociology.

There is one somewhat profound [given one's personal proclivities]
statement that the author of the book makes .... "... in human-animal
relationships there are two selves regarding one another, not merely
one self and a Cartesian automaton ...".

I suspect how people respond to this statement will have a large
correlation to which of the 2 groups [that you were more or less
delineating above] they will fall into - all sentimentality aside ;-).
0
feedbackdroids
6/9/2004 3:42:23 AM
talkswithbeagles@nmo.net (Talks With Beagles) wrote in message news:<40d2ba3.0406081757.2e15c7c2@posting.google.com>...
> gms2004@lycos.com (Just Playing) wrote in message news:<543191fc.0406080655.7225a1f6@posting.google.com>...
>  
> > > > There is a difference between "need" and "want". 
> > > > Actually  "want" can be defined as a "known, acknowledged need".
>  
> > Just Playing:
> > 
> > I just keep on playing
> > It is a very simple model but it is fun to play with it.
> > 
> > "Need" and "can" are very loose terms in this model, and anything that
> > brings you something positive, something you appreciate, just like fun
> > or eating meat is included in the "need" column.
> > You take some other people's definition of "need" and apply it in your
> > case and find that you are not acting rationally.
> > The model does not look at the rationality as organizing structure but
> > at "balance". And someone is in balance whenever he/she "feels good".
> > 
> > "There are lots of things that people can do, but choose not to."
> > Exactly, because they do not need them. They are in balance without
> > doing them.
> > 
> > "If you want to do something badly enough, you can usually find the
> > means to do it"
> > You are not in balance so you work hard to improve your knowledge or
> > increase your means, "can".
> > 
> > "It may take a few years, and you will have to give up other things
> > that you don't want as much."
> > "If you are able to give these things up it means that you never
> > needed them in the first place, even if other people seem to think
> > that they know what you need."
> > You adjust your knowledge of your needs so to be again in balance.
> > 
> > The model gets more and more complicated but somehow you are able to
> > reduce most of the human behavior to the 3 variables.
> > 
> > Just Playing
> 
> Okay, I think I've got it now. When you say "need", you mean "need it
> to become happy", not "need it to survive". When you say "balance" you
> mean "You are happy when you have the things you need to make you
> happy.", not "You are unbalanced because you don't want the same
> things that I do." When you put it that way, your model makes a lot
> more sense.
> 
> This brings us back to the "knowing" part. How do people know what
> they need to make them happy? Would they be just as happy if they
> didn't know that the thing existed?

Just Playing
This si a tricky part for such a simple model. I look at "know" as a
tool that you start using whenever you are not in balance. And in most
situations you do not know if you are in balance, but you "feel" it.
So, in this case "knowing" is replaced by "feeling".
And as long you are in balance, you feel good why do you need to know
more? except, that you are constantly under a barrage of advertising
that tries to make you feel not good and buy that something that will
make you feel good.
And by the way this how capitalism defeated socialism, by advertising
lots of products that were unavailable in the socialist countries and
thus creating instability. The next step was the easy one, the people
did not trust their system anymore and were looking for a better one.



 It never ceases to amaze me that
> people think they need lots of things that weren't invented a few
> years ago. If it is so important, how did everybody get by without it
> for all those years? Of course, not every new invention is useless;
> but if you buy something that you don't need, it means that you have
> less money left to buy the things that you do need.

Just Playing
You actually introduce new information in the system, you create an
imbalance and the people start to include the new products in their
"need" system, The next step is that they adjust their "can", their
mental and physical capacities around the new products.
The balance, and the "feel good" is the organizing structure.
0
gms2004
6/9/2004 5:07:10 PM
gms2004@lycos.com (Just Playing) wrote in message news:<543191fc.0406090907.48020114@posting.google.com>...
> talkswithbeagles@nmo.net (Talks With Beagles) wrote in message news:<40d2ba3.0406081757.2e15c7c2@posting.google.com>...
> > gms2004@lycos.com (Just Playing) wrote in message news:<543191fc.0406080655.7225a1f6@posting.google.com>...

> Just Playing
> This si a tricky part for such a simple model. I look at "know" as a
> tool that you start using whenever you are not in balance. And in most
> situations you do not know if you are in balance, but you "feel" it.
> So, in this case "knowing" is replaced by "feeling".
> And as long you are in balance, you feel good why do you need to know
> more? except, that you are constantly under a barrage of advertising
> that tries to make you feel not good and buy that something that will
> make you feel good.
> And by the way this how capitalism defeated socialism, by advertising
> lots of products that were unavailable in the socialist countries and
> thus creating instability. The next step was the easy one, the people
> did not trust their system anymore and were looking for a better one. 

Okay, we all have feelings; but these feelings don't just fall out of
the sky. Feelings begin with perception. Your brain processes this
perception and decides what to do about it. Then it tells your body to
secrete certain chemicals. These chemicals are what cause the
feelings. The purpose of feelings is to inspire you to some kind of
action. One of the most elemental actions would be the "fight or
flight" response. Another one would be sexual love; but if you want to
keep this simple, we'd better not go there.

I don't think that capitalism really defeated socialism. Capitalism
pre-existed socialism, at least on a national level. Socialism was
supposed be the rememdy for the "evils" of capitalism, but it didn't
work. To be sure, Capitalism had a lot of things wrong with it. It's
still not perfect, but many of the problems have since been corrected
or at least mitigated. Socialism probably provided an impetus for
capitalism to clean up it's act, which just validates the old
capitalist proverb that competition is good for business.

> Just Playing
> You actually introduce new information in the system, you create an
> imbalance and the people start to include the new products in their
> "need" system, The next step is that they adjust their "can", their
> mental and physical capacities around the new products.
> The balance, and the "feel good" is the organizing structure.

One of the problems with capitalism is over production. This causes
disruptions in the business cycle and puts people out of work. Mother
Nature does something like this too, but she solves the problem by
having everybody eat each other's children. Let's not go there either!
Capitalism attempts to resolve this by convincing people that they
"need" more and more stuff to be happy. While this is certainly more
humane than "Nature's way", it still seems kind of wasteful and
decadent, doesn't it?

I am reminded of a parable that Jesus told about a rich farmer who's
servants reported that his barns were full and there was no room to
store the surplus crops. The farmer proclaimed, "I will pull down my
barns and build bigger barns!" If that had been me, I would have
said," Close the barn doors and let's all go fishing. Feed the surplus
crops to the deer and we'll all have good hunting this fall." One
thing about hunting and fishing; there is never a problem with surplus
production. At least that has been my experience.
0
talkswithbeagles
6/10/2004 1:19:43 AM
'goal' is not a mathematical term then.
JJ
Just Playing <gms2004@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:543191fc.0406070552.25435484@posting.google.com...
> "John Jones" <jiversjivers@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:<ca09ct$hgp$1@titan.btinternet.com>...
> > > > I will use 3 assumptions:
> > > > 1st: I know what I need.
> > > > 2nd: I know what I can.
> > > > 3rd: In order to be in balance it is necessary that the 1st
assumption
> > > > to be less or equal with the 2nd assumption.
> > > > Most of the problems seem to arise because what we can is less than
> > > > what we need and our "goal", "wish", "desire" "motivation", etc. is
to
> > > > bring these 2 variables in balance.
> >
> > Yes, very good. We try to explain the outcome in terms of what we know.
> > Are we explaining the outcome or describing it, when we use terms such
as
> > 'goals', etc?
> > The question must arise, 'do we need to know the means by which we can
> > acheive something in order to acheive it?
> >
> > JJ
> Just playing answers
> >
> Actually by "goal" I understand the part that is missing for the 2
> assumptions to be in balance, or the unknown variable, "x" in an
> equation.
> It is called "goal", "motivation" or whatever other term, but it
> appears only when there is an imbalance or the equation cannot be
> solved without a new term, variable.
>
> Just Playing
>
>
> > Just Playing <gms2004@lycos.com> wrote in message
> > news:543191fc.0406061337.33a9837f@posting.google.com...
> > > gms2004@lycos.com (Just Playing) wrote in message
> >  news:<543191fc.0406051353.36f18d8c@posting.google.com>...
> > > > I will use 3 assumptions:
> > > > 1st: I know what I need.
> > > > 2nd: I know what I can.
> > > > 3rd: In order to be in balance it is necessary that the 1st
assumption
> > > > to be less or equal with the 2nd assumption.
> > > > Most of the problems seem to arise because what we can is less than
> > > > what we need and our "goal", "wish", "desire" "motivation", etc. is
to
> > > > bring these 2 variables in balance.
> > > > The most important variable seems to be the "know" one
> > > > If what we know is incorrect, the achievement of our goals,
motivation
> > > > will not bring the desired result, the balance.
> > > > Looking at the pursuit of happiness, and money, they can be easily
> > > > explained using the 3 variables.
> > > > Pursuit of happiness is a simple case where what I can is less than
> > > > what I need and happiness is what is missing for the 2 to be in
> > > > balance.
> > > > Money is the pure social expression of "can" and so whenever you
feel
> > > > that you are unable to achieve balance you will try to increase the
> > > > amount of money.
> > > > But why are not all the rich people happy?
> > > > Maybe because the 1st assumption is incorrect and they do not really
> > > > know what they need, and in this case their goal, money, will not
> > > > bring them happiness,
> > > > So it looks that every time you feel unhappy, maybe you should try
to
> > > > adjust what you know about what you need and what you can.
> > > > Using the same 3 variables one can look at socialism as a system
that
> > > > tries to achieve the balance by decreasing the needs and the
knowledge
> > > > in the first place and only after that by trying to increase the
> > > > capacities. Its main problem is that it tries to achieve and
maintain
> > > > the balance at any cost.
> > > > Capitalism, on the other hand, is a system that is increasing the
> > > > needs and the knowledge and thus creates a continuous imbalance. By
> > > > doing this, capitalism is forcing innovation, new knowledge, in
order
> > > > to increase the capacity and bring it back in balance.
> > > > Another way to look at this is an analogy with an equation where
> > > > "know" is the mathematical functions that brings the variables,
"need"
> > > > and "can" into balance.
> > > > Most of the religions tend to do the same thing as the socialism,
> > > > maybe with the exception of the Buddhism, which is trying to
increase
> > > > the individual knowledge of "need" and "can".
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Now let's just look what happens when a new "need" arrives, when I
> > > become "aware" of something new.
> > > It is a daily phenomenon as a result of the advertising of new
> > > products.
> > > The natural tendency it to achieve the new product, to assimilate it
> > > as a need, and as long as I can, I have the means to do it, everything
> > > seems to be in balance.
> > > It may be even a positive thing whenever I have an excess of money,
> > > capacity, etc as it can be seen from the large number of bored rich
> > > people that spent their time shopping. They are actually just trying
> > > to bring in balance the "need" and "can".
> > > But whenever I do not have the money, the means to achieve the new
> > > product, I will try to maintain the balance by ignoring the product
> > > (not acknowledging), by not including it in my "needs", or by trying
> > > to obtain the money, means to acquire the new product.
> > > And meantime I am in imbalance and I have a lot of negative feelings,
> > > sensations, emotions, etc.


0
John
6/13/2004 3:02:53 AM
"John Jones" <jiversjivers@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<cagg4s$5tb$9@titan.btinternet.com>...
> 'goal' is not a mathematical term then.

> Just Playing

I am not sure what you mean by mathematical, but if you accept the
simple model of an equation, and you need to solve it, the value of
the unknown variable X is sometimes called "goal"
Value of the X variable is what makes the equation to have a solution.
X can have values from 0 as in no goal, no wish to almost the largest
possible number like in an addcition.

Just Playing
0
gms2004
6/13/2004 4:23:54 PM
Reply: