Classless society is impossible

While understanding what you're saying, I nevertheless don't think these terms are as ambiguous as you suggest.

Individuals with experience in the courts, for example, understand that there is almost never real justice. A charade takes place pretending to dispense justice, but the most base and idiotic prejudices actually motivate those who work there.

But the same is true in personal disputes. Base and idiotic prejudices motivate most (but not all) human beings. Indeed, the dominant ethos in the world is a mistaken idea that says there must always be a loser and a winner. This zero-sum perspective is at the core of socialist and capitalist ideology.

Upon this faulty view are constructed the elaborate systems of injustice and selfishness characteristic of both capitalist and socialist systems...with some notable exceptions which will be discussed elsewhere.

Most (but not all) of us intuitively understand that life isn't supposed to be so difficult as it certainly is for the majority of humans alive today. As one gets more education in history and experience in economics, it becomes increasingly difficult (eventually impossible) to justify any form of dictatorship...whether capitalist or socialist/communist.

There's ample evidence that there's more than enough resources available to provide every human being with a level of existence equal to a U.S. millionaire.

Buckminster Fuller dedicated his life to "..the search for the principles governing the universe and help advance the evolution of humanity in accordance with them... finding ways of doing more with less to the end that all people everywhere can have more and more" http://www.bfi.org/

"JUSTICE is rendering to every one that which is his due. It has been distinguished from equity in this respect, that while justice means merely the doing what positive law demands, equity means the doing of what is fair and right in every separate case."

CHARITY is the opposite of selfishness. It requires empathy for others...something that one usually learns by the example of others, although there appear to be individuals who are born with this truly human quality.

Evidence please?

In every place where they manage to take power, Communists and/or Socialists merely replace one ruling elite with another.

In Lenin's takeover of Russia, he was forced to implement his "New Economic Program" which was nothing but capitalism managed by the state.

While Lenin and his followers did eliminate "classes" in the early stage of their activity, Lenin quickly saw that it was necessary to reintroduce "classes" in order to get the state to function. The prols weren't able to do simple things such as accounting and control of manufacturing processes and massive starvation was taking place.

It means what is says. Rather than seeing the world as a conflict of "classes" we will do more to improve the human condition by focusing on bringing justice and charity to the top of our list of concerns.

This is a Zenoian paradox. If the tortise has a slight lead Achilles can never beat the tortise because he must first cross half the disnance between himself and the tortise, then half of the half, and then half of the half of the half...into infinity.

Like many well-intentioned idealistic people, you're thinking in dialectical materislistic utopian terms and I'm saying this is the root of the problem. The dialectical materialistic model which socialists, communist, anarchists, capitalists, and libertarians mistakenly believe is the sumum bonum of analysis.

Reality is very different from the utopian dialectical materialistic "classless society" hypothesis and its dichotomy (utopian capitalist/libertarian). 150 years ago, the "classless society" hypothesis seemed to be heading in the direction of becoming a theory (facts pointing to a conclusion). But over that span of time the socialist/communist hypothesis and its mirror-opposite capitalist/libertarian hypothesis have been shown to be very mistaken.

Let me emphasize that the Malthusian capitalist (later libertarian) hypothesis has also been shown to be very mistaken.

Except that you stop being a human being, you cannot have a culture that doesn't manifest "classes". Some form of hierarchy will always emerge. What matters is the level of knowledge possessed by each member of a society. People can learn to live in cooperation and the rules of teams shows this is true. We see it most readily in sports, but also in combat units and corporate sales groups.

If justice is the main concern of a society, there will not be any need to worry about "classes" because people will, in general, be treated fairly in all realms of life.

Communists, socialists, anarchists, christians, and muslims all share a common idea: that by eliminating all other views a better world will come into existence. All these groups violently force their way of thinking on others. To some extent, they've been successful, but only for limited periods.

Orthodox Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists, on the other hand, accept the human condition and strive for justice and mercy as the moral and ethical goals. Generally speaking, it's from these cultures that the most productive and beneficial individuals have emerged.

A different way of thinking about the human condition is emerging, one that doesn't see life as an endless cycle of opposition. One of the terms used do describe this way of thining is "trialectics" and Dr. Robert E. Horn does a good job of comparing and contrasting Traditional Logic, Dialectical Logic, and Trialectical Logic:

http://www.stanford.edu/~rhorn/a/topic/phil/artclTrapsOfFormalLogic.html

Horn's work is based on Oscar Ichazo's protoanalysis. A useful book outlining Ichazo's views: Ichazo, O. 1982. Between Metaphysics and Protoanalysis. New York: Arica.

PART 1 -- TRAPS OF TRADITIONAL LOGIC

The seven of traps that derive from traditional logic are:

*The Forever Changeless Trap.

In this trap we think of the current condition as being the same forever.

*The Process-Event Trap.

This trap leads us into the error of thinking in terms of object-like "events" where we would do better to think in terms of processes.

*The Solve It by Redefining It Trap.

This could be called the Definition Can Do It Trap in that it attempts to solve problems by redefinition alone.

*The Independent Self Trap.

In this trap we separate organism from environment, ourselves from our interdependence with others.

*The Isolated Problem Trap.

In the grip of this trap we regard problems as unconnected to their wider contexts.

*The Single Effect Trap.

In this trap we think that we can cause a single effect with no "side-effects."

*The Exclusive Alternatives Trap.

Traditional logic tends to make us think in terms of either-or analysis. Many situations demand that we juggle more than two alternatives.

The reader will recall that traditional logic comprises those general rules of thinking derived from Aristotle's Organon. (see note 1) It concerns itself only with identity and non-contradiction.

These traps result from the unconscious acceptance of the point of view implicit in the axioms of traditional logic, which are

1. The axiom of identity:

A thing is always equal to or identical to itself. everything is what it is. A is A.

2. The axiom of contradiction:

A thing can not be both itself and something else. A is not not-A.

3. The axiom of the excluded middle:

Each thing must be one of two mutually exclusive things. A is not both A and not-A.

PART 2. DIALECTIC TRAPS

Dialectics is as necessary for our thinking as is traditional logic and with the same proviso, that we apply it correctly and accept its limitations. Dialectics is needed for critique and to add the time-dimension to our thinking. But the dialectic point of view also has the capacity to draw us into potential error. It contains powerful metaphors that often appear to control our thought in certain areas almost to the exclusion of other possibilities.

I outline six potential dialectic traps:

*The More Is Better Trap. In this trap we assume that anything can be solved by application of more resources.

*The Force Can Do It Trap. In the grips of this trap we think in terms only of forcing a solution on the situation.

*The Conflicts Create Productive Change Trap. A direct implication of dialectical thought is the idea that you can create change by creating conflict and that conflict will produce beneficial results.

*The Inevitable Antagonism Trap. In this trap we assume that there is inevitable conflict between persons, organisms, groups, nation-states.

*The No Limits Trap. This trap assumes limitless resources and arenas for action.

*The There's Got to Be a Winner Trap. This trap is the misapplication of the idea of a winner and loser to situations where it is not applicable.

These traps result from the unconscious acceptance of the point of view implicit in the axioms of dialectical logic, which are:

1. The axiom of transformation:

Sufficient changes in quantity may produce changes in quality.

2. The axiom of interaction between opposites:

Opposing forces produce a transformation of the system which includes both of them.

3. The axiom of negation of the negation:

The inevitable conflict between thesis and its antithesis produces something different from either of them, the synthesis.

http://www.stanford.edu/~rhorn/a/topic/phil/artclTrapsOfFormalLogic.html

[I had to do some searching for a good exposition of Trialectics. The following is an extensive quote from "Trialectics" (Proceedings of the First Lexington Conference on Trialectics), 1983. The person who posted this at their web site didn't give any reference to the source. Because of this intellectual dishonesty, I'm not going to give a reference to that web site.

A legitimate source for more information on Ichazo and Arica: http://taichi.gn.apc.org/arica.htm ]

Trialectics

Oscar Ichazo offers a Logic of Process called Trialectics, a practical logic of unity cast in axiomatic form. This logic model understands change as a function of unfolding interacting elements moving toward equilibrium within an inclusive context.

Axioms of Trialectics (Ichazo)

1. Axiom of Mutation:

A Material Manifestation Point (MMP) inevitably mutates into another MMP.

a) The mutation is completed when internal equilibrium has been achieved. In a mutation the equilibrium is internal, is function, and generally is pure, invisible action. Within every process there are four elements: the attractive, the active, the equilibrium (or function), and the result.

b) MMPís are neutral points of energy retention

c) Energy moves in a universe with pre-established laws and pre-established MMPís or within pre-established patterns;.

d) The absence of function provokes contradiction which in turn struggles to find equilibrium that can only be resolved downward.

2. Axiom of Circulation:

Inside of everything there is the seed of its apparent opposite. The equilibrium between opposites depends on a balanced circulation of energy.

a) From the cosmic point of view, opposites do not exist.

b) From the cosmic point of view, there are no collisions, there is circulation, that is, process

c) In nature there are no accidents

3. Axiom of Attraction:

The perpetual motion of all creation is due to the interchange of energy between MMPs and there is, therefore, an inherent attraction to either a higher or lower MMP

a) Higher MMPs are subject to fewer factors and elements (are more permanent and have a greater range, less internal movement, and greater exterior expansion.)

b) MMPs are responsive to the attraction of higher or lower correlating vibrations in a pre-established pattern.

c) One MMPís attraction to another can be ascending or descending.

Discussion.

Traditional western understanding of process has been along the lines of dialectic conflict. Dialectics (Hegel and Marx) assumed that change takes place as a result of conflicting elements (every action generates an opposite reaction) with a new synthesis. Trialectics, as a ìpractical logic of unityî sees process as movement toward equilibrium involving interacting elements moved by the inherent attraction between them.

Reality is conceived as energy taking form as material menifestation points (MMPís). Similar in concept to ìGestaltî (configuration, form) an MMP is a temporary configuration (point of energy retention) which will inevitably evolve into other configurations. From atoms to galaxies, thoughts to symphonies, cells, plants, animals or societies, any ìthingî is an MMP. Any configuration is liable to change, and that change can be seen from the viewpoint of trialectics.

Any process involves three elements: the Active (+), the Attractive (-), and the Function, or the movement toward equilibrium. The outcome is the Result. a new point of equilibrium, a new MMP. Blockage of the equilibrium, contradiction, results in a lower MMP.

The MMPs are pre-established patterns. The result is already contained within the situation. Acorns become oaks. There are higher and lower configurations, the higher being subject to fewer factors and elements.

Opposites do not exist from a cosmic point of view. Everything contains the seed of its apparent opposite and both are part of a larger whole. Equilibrium involves balanced circulation between them.

The movement of process is propelled by the inherent attraction between MMPís.

Trialectics is a viewpoint for observing any process, at any level, but it is a system derived from disciplines of consciousness and transcendent insight: therefore it is especially adapted to observing events within the personal, interpersonal, and introspective process.

Many of the axiomatic statements imply a consciousness perspective: for example concepts like higher and lower apply to processes observed in chemistry and physics, but also to states of consciousness.

An Injunctive Form of Trialectics

In the axiomatic form, trialectics is an attempt to describe the nature of reality. It is thus meta-physical in the classical meaning of that term. In its descriptive form it is likely to arouse scientific resistance because it cannot be tested.

Like the logical models of Formal Logic and Dialectics, Trialectics is a way of thinking about reality, a paradigm for looking at process.

Professor Hal Casswell has re-cast trialectics into an injunctive form, a set of directions which might be used to carry out a trialectically- oriented scientific research. The same injunctions might make it easier for any person to use this way of thinking.

1. Axiom of Mutation in Injunctive Form.

In attemption to understand any process, search for its limits, for the stable manifestations exhibited by the process, and for the transitions betwen these stable manifestations.

For each component of the process, attempt to identify

a) The attractive variables (those aspects of its environment to which the component responds.

b) the active variables (those aspects of the component which determine its susceptibility to the attraction.

c) the result (the aspects of the behavior of the component which are to be explained)

d) the function which determines the result, given the active and attractive elements.

2. Axiom of Circulation in Injunctive Form.

In attempting to understand any process, search for a description of its apparent opposite.

Search for the way in which cycles connecting these apparent opposites are completed, either within the system or through the connection of the system to its larger context.

3. Axiom of Attraction in Injunctive Form.

In attempting to understand any process, search for a hierarchy of levels which allow MMPs to be classivied as higher or lower in energy, greater or lesser in range, or subject to a greater or lesser number of restrictions.

Advantages of the Injunctive Form

The injunctive form changes the emphasis of the discussion from the truth of the laws as descriptive statements to the value of the laws as a programme for understanding prcesses. In this form it can be related to the principles of systems theory and cybernetics, and thus to the actual procedures used by biological, physical and social scientists in studying dynamics.

The injunctive form directs attention to particular aspects of the situation: change, stable manifestation points, cycles, levels, attraction, equilibrium, and so on.

A good sense of humor is a sign of maturity. But mockery of everything is a sign of immaturity, idioicy, or stupidity.

What we need is a way of thinking and talking about the cycles and process of life that doesn't lead us into endless conflict.

"Polylectics" is clever...even funny. But it's another trap...an intellectual "slough of despond." An amorphous anarchistic way of thinking--really a childish way of thinking--into which so many intellectuals are prone to stumble and drown in psychobabble shit.

We now have a very large global "Polylectic" culture fed on MTV, MadAve marketing, Coca Cola, and other such mass-marketing. Those who participate in this often think of themselves as individuals. They espouse anti-corporate ideology but are actually mindless sheep, thoughtless cattle, consumers of drek and not at all in control of their lives.

The illusion of freedom seems to be more important than genuine freedom. Authentic freedom comes from knowing what you're doing and why you're doing it, not from feeding your habits and saying the opposite of whaever you hear someone else say.

HOORAY FOR ANARCHY! It's be biggest selling commodity in the international marketplace!

So you're one of the anti-corporate MTV babies, eh?

You've entirely missed the point, oh fanatical believer in gyne-emoto-dispersism (anti-phallo-logo-centrism)!

Hooray for the great classless masses of consuming anti-consumerism who pay top dollar for all that anarchist commercialism! They've successfully raised three generations of first-class chomskybot idiots who swallow everything that comes down the e-commerce pike.

So far as you know? How far is it that you know?

"Pretentious arse writing pseudo-intellectual rubbish" What a non-responsive answer. Did you read that in a comic book?

You come off like a teenage brat with a hangup on her pet monkey.

Nothing matters except for whatever is in your mind at the moment, or in your desire for the moment.

You make so many assumptions and don't even bother to think.

But who could ever tell you anything, eh? You already know all there is to know!

Watch out for snakes, baby!

Dear Professor Charlatan:

What has any of this to do with the critique of formal logic and dialectical materialism?

My posts are mostly quotes from authentic academic sources. My comments are based on studying those sources, my professional training, and my direct experience. That you're incapable of understanding what those sources have to say isn't my problem. It's yours.

That you want to disagree with my sources and with my comments is understandable. But your knee-jerk reactions aren't reasoning, they're sophistry. Nowhere do you offered a genuine response. Instead, you throw out teenage insult phrases and snot-nosed hyperbole.

You're arguing into a mirror. Impress people? Another absurd statement based on your own distorted Relation Instinct.

Critique of socialist, communist, libertarian, capitalist, anarchist atheology isn't my invention. In fact, I don't claim to have any particularly bright and original ideas.

I present the works of others and, until this fruitless exchange with you, had hoped this forum would elicit comments of a higher intellectual calibre than those you've given.

Already it's painfully clear that you're merely one of the semi-literate masses of "classless" ersatz intellectuals who've been miseducated by three generations of dumbing-down in the educational systems.

Too bad because judging from your gramatically correct sentence structure, at one time you probably could have been a first-rate thinker. Maybe it isn't too late for you but with such hubris as you possess, one can't expect much.

Like most (but not all) others of your class of classless true believers, you're so deeply sunk in subjectivity and dialectical (oppositional) thinking that you're not capable of reasoning. You're only capable of engaging in Orwellian duckspeak and childish verbal games.

There are too many hot-buttons in your psyche and this of course is exactly where the socialist-communist-libertarian-anarchist "classless" zeitgest inevitably leads. Keeping you in this state of confusion is exactly what the propaganda is intended to do.

And it has been a splendid success.

There's a large Arica school presence in London and should you ever entertain the idea of actually working on youself and raising your level of consciousness, they can provide the framework for this process.

Enjoy your solipistic self-indulgence and keep arguing in that mirror!

Another solipistic nonresponse from a proud member of the classless class.

Hooray!

I apologize.

I made a tremendous mistake thinking this was a forum where educated and thoughtful people discussed ideas related to improving the human condition.

Because you (and apparently the majority of participants here) think at the Sun tabloid level of a third-grader, you want me to come down to your level.

Thanks for clarifying everything.

"It's a beautiful world!" Devo

http://www.thesun.co.uk/section/0,,2,00.html