Libertarian-Socialist Individual - An Argument

Avatar

By rhodri 23-06-2018 01:48:37

Member · 5 comments

Humanity. This is an inquiry. There are two types of inquiry, understanding and analysis. Interpreting effective description (understanding) and assessing given a rationale (analysis). There are two further types of understanding or analysis; rationalism (inquiry of awareness from the self - ideas1 or usually assumptions) and empiricism (inquiry of awareness from the material realm - usually evidence).

This is an inquiry defining and describing human nature using interpreted claims about thoughts. You perform an inquiry whereby we extend the claimed descriptions of “I think thus I am” to universal descriptions (laws) and make interpretations for further universal laws, an interpretation being a defined alternative possibility (description that accords with claims) a variation of descriptions. This is for use vocationally or for further inquiry. The facts and laws describe the awareness through interpretation. It is interpretation of a sense, in language, for awareness.

The interpretation that works with other valid interpretations is itself valid, as the text coherant. There are no assumptions to the sum of interpretations, as assumptions are not reasons but lucky description at best. Eg/ assuming rational self interest on the stock exchange (understood as a human nature) to invest and then being successful, does not give you a sure reason. We were actually only rational on financial markets, but always will be. We were lucky with the assumption, actually, we are not rational machines, not rational all the time, but will always be lucky as we are rational on that market. No validity. Its an assumption.

Colour is perceived. It is perceived in various, 100% different, forms (light, paint, roses, various completely different compositions. Definitions are described compositions), yet is interpreted as a singular perception (light and paint can both be classed as red). Different compositions are interpreted to be the same colour. Colour is not a variant (different properties) of an object as the difference is who see’s it, you dont choose perceptions - you see one each. Colour is subject to the individual, It cannot be defined ( I cannot define a new colour down the telephone, you have to see it to paint a room ). Nano-meter wavelength of light is a description of colour, an example of colour not a definition, not a composition of colour. We thus sometimes disagree on identification (some will call something red, some say burgundy). We all agree on what is colour, further, what are the same colours, but we can disagree on what it looks like.

If we say red is red then the assumption is made we all see the same colour we call red. We may actually see slight variations in colour between us (what we see). We then agree on a label (in light) but it cant be defined, so we never know. Look to the blue on facebook, how do you know mark zuckerberg doesnt see what you call red, and call it blue never knowing? describe blue without using examples as they are seen as "red" too. Define the difference between red and blue, is it brightness? If I make blue brighter is it red?

Saying its a reaction in the eye assumes all eyes are the same. We can thus interpret colours, interpret awareness and there are even connotations (art). SO, colour is not imagined, as we would have to know the composition. It cannot be defined, it is not imagined, not conceived in the mind - but something we sense. Colour cannot be defined when we all use it. We must sense it, independently, in order to use it. We may interpret it but it is still something we sense. A subject, something subject to interpretation. This means colour exists; however it cannot be defined when it is used by others, thus others (who must sense it) exist. We must exist to sense. We must exist in a universal realm. Reality.

Colour thus defines existence as a subjective reality, but do I exist? I doubt everything until I discover something doubtless. You cannot doubt doubt itself. I doubt thus im reductionist. When I wonder if I exist then I interpret definitions and ponder many possible forms of existence. I must exist in order to interpret. My will interprets right thus I exist. If I interpret thoughts right, then thinking is the result of, subject to, existence (something must choose interpretations). Thinking thus signals my existence. I think therefore I am (Where there is thinking, there is existence). As thinking always means existence (to everyone) then reality accords to laws making it that way. Reality accords to derived laws for inquiry. There is a subject, and a subjective, and as laws are universal, universally conditioned, reality.

As every person, can think this, and it means the same thing to us all - then we all exist and the laws derived are thus universal, and valid. The subjective concept of validity, standard of validity, is valid.

LAW - I THINK THEREFORE I AM IS A VALID STATEMENT

FACT - LANGUAGE MAKES THIS AND OTHER STATEMENTS

INTERPRETATION - STATEMENTS ( INCLUDING GRAMMATICALLY DEMANDED CONJUNCTIONS ) CAN BE VALID OR NOT. CONCEPT OF VALIDITY IN SUBJECT. STATEMENT IS EVALUATED BY SUBJECT ( ASSESSED VALIDITY )

These statements describe the claim. You think them through - defining what you sense in the claim. The claim can be defined as>

(Apparent) Will defines,

(Apparent) Will realises definitions,


We either use words to define the statement, OR realise words you know for the statement “...I think thus I am...”.


An example would be looking at something and realise its a coke can, or look at it and call it a coke can. That is either realise from knowledge what it is OR, define what it is; interpreting what you sense.


(Thinking) is will defines, (from self),

(Thinking) is will realises definition,

Defining apparents defined as>



Will is initiating action,

realise is operative-activation

Definition is a described composition of something (“I think thus I am” is describing compositions using words).

"I think therefore i am" described further by >

Will interprets/realises right definition, (Interpreted as right language (grammar etc) or right content. Both interpretations are apparent)

knowledge implies definition ( knowledge is awareness )

we think in definitions (definitions to words we think in)

definitions interpreted/realise as right,

definitions can repeat, or progress logically,

we dont define to much or too little,

learn definitions,

will stems from self,

will chooses right definition,

will is independent ( Need help? )

definitions benefit self ( “I exist” is the demanded sense from a subjective statement, thus statement has a subjective benefit. (Will is independent and definition satisfactory for whatever reason)).

definitions are free,

will produces definitions,

will consumes the definition,

definition is satisfactory (Interpret valid statement - subject has concept of validity. Statement is valid. Definitions satisfactorily valid to subject.)

definitions cost time,

statements can be less descriptive ("therefore" means descartes can be interpreted, it is thus more complicated))

statements require care and attention

Further apparent>

"d*^k" (we interpret/realise feeling offended)


I doubt everything until i discover something doubtless. Thus an understanding of society is reduced to that of individual human natures in it, starting with descartes statement and colour.


FACT - COLOUR AND BRIGHTNESS ONLY PROPERTIES OF LIGHT OBSERVED

FACT - COLOUR CANT BE DEFINED

FACT - COLOUR DISTINGUISHED FROM LIGHT AND USED BY OTHER

FACT - SAME COLOUR ON DIFFERENT COMPOSITES


INTERPRETATION - INTERPRET OR REALIES A VARIANT OF A SUBJECT. AWARENESS IS SUBJECTIVE


The other has used colour not light when it cant be defined, meaning he must have sensed the difference. I recognize this as colour, not light. However, what the colour is may be interpreted. We all sense colour as possibly something subjected to interpretation. We sense the difference between its formal definition ( Red - effect of light with a wavelength between 610 and 780 nanometers ) and the colour perceived, used and recognized (paint, blood). As this colour maybe interpreted, it is subject to perception of differing individuals. It is a subjective variant to individuals.


LAW - WILL INTERPRETS/REALISES RIGHT DEFINITION

LAW - I THINK THEREFORE I AM

LAW - I THINK IN DEFINITIONS

LAW - DEFINITIONS ARE SATISFACTORY


INTERPRETATION - I EXPRESS MY EXISTENCE THROUGH INTERPRETATION OR REALISATION OF DEFINITIONS. DEFINITIONS SUBJECTED TO EXISTENCE, EXPRESSION OF WILL SATISFIED BY DEFINITION


We can interpret "I think therefore I am" as a signal of existence, or a definition of thinking as existence. Both interpretations seem valid however I may define thoughts as reflection/expression of existence because the very fact that it can be interpreted means its not objective but subjective definition. Subjective to existence. Meaning of statement is subject to the existence behind it.

Will has an intention behind it, intention stemming from existence, that is then satisfied by definition. This interpretation works with other interpretations.


LAW - WILL DEFINES/REALISES DEFINITION

LAW - KNOWLEDGE IMPLIES DEFINITION

LAW - INTERPRET/REALISE RIGHT DEFINITION


INTERPRETATION - THINKING IS INTERDEPENDENCE OF REALISED/INTERPRETED KNOWLEDGE AND WILL.


Thinking is subject to knowledge and intention behind will ( reason ).


LAW - I THINK THEREFORE I AM

LAW - THINK IN DEFINITIONS

LAW - DEFINITIONS ARE SATISFACTORY


INTERPRETATION - I WANT TO THINK AND THINKING SATISFYS WHATEVER REASON


As I think in satisfactory definitions then thinking is satisfactory and I want to think, when its a product of existence. Whatever the reason, its satisfied.


LAW - I THINK THUS I AM (THOUGHTS ARE ABOUT SUBJECT)

LAW - KNOWLEDGE IMPLIES DEFINITION

FACT - SENSE SUBJECTS (AWARE)

LAW - WILL DEFINES OR REALISES DEFINITION

INTERPRETATION - THINKING IS DEFINING OR REALISING SUBJECTIVE DEFINITION, SUBJECTS HAVE DEFINITION


There is our existence, thinking and our awareness. Existence sets the condition for thinking. Thinking is interdependence of knowledge and will. We interpret/realise subjected thoughts. There is reason for thinking as it satisfys. Awareness is sensed, it is the (perhaps interpreted) perception of subjects. There is reason for awareness and sense satisfys this.


FACT - SENSORY AWARENESS OF SUBJECTS

LAW - SUBJECTS HAVE DEFINITION

LAW - WILL DEFINES/REALISES DEFINITION

LAW - DEFINITIONS ARE SATISFACTORY


INTERPRETATION - AWARENESS SATISFIED BY SENSE ( As definition is satisfactory, so sense of subject is satisfactory. We must satisfactorily sensed a subject for will to define satisfactorily).


LAW - SENSORY AWARENESS OF SUBJECTS

LAW - SUBJECTS HAVE DEFINITION

LAW - WILL DEFINES


INTERPRETATION - WILL DEFINES SENSORY AWARENESS ( BECOMING DEFINED AWARENESS ). KNOWLEDGE IS AN EFFECTIVE AWARENESS, ARRANGED FOR A CSF IN LANGUAGE


Subjects have definition and will defines them, i'm aware of subjects and thus define awareness. Awareness put into words is defined awareness ( knowledge ). Knowledge is effective awareness, arranged for a CSF (see below). The CSF is arranged language for an effective awareness.


LAW - WILL DEFINES SENSORY AWARENESS

LAW - WILL REALISES/INTERPRETS RIGHT DEFINITIONS


INTERPRETATION - WILL REALISES/INTERPRETS DEFINED AWARENESS (INTERPRETS OR REALISES DEFINITIONS )


Will inteprets/realises right contents to defined awareness.


LAW - I THINK THEREFORE I AM

LAW - WE THINK IN DEFINITIONS

LAW - DEFINITIONS PROGRESS LOGICALLY

LAW - DEFINTIONS ARE DESCRIBED COMPOSITIONS


INTERPRETATION - DEFINITIONS ARE ACTIONED-CONTENT (ACTIONED DESCRIPTION OF COMPOSITIONS)

Thinking, speaking, reading and writing is actioning the content. Thinking is the action, "I am" indicates the sense, composed of contents.


LAW - DEFINITIONS ARE SATISFACTORY

LAW - DEFINITIONS BENEFIT SELF

LAW - DEFINITIONS ARE REALISED/INTERPRETED RIGHT

LAW - DEFINITIONS COST TIME


INTERPRETATION - CORRECT AND ACCURATE DEFINITIONS HAVE POSITIVES TO THE CONTENT.ACTION CONTENTS HAVE POSITIVES.


Right, is "technical" right and right content. The right word, it may not necessarilly be very beneficial ( value ). Right and value are positives. (eg "Cup of tea?" is formed right, but has no value here as its not beneficial ). Benefit is value.


LAW - CORRECT AND ACCURATE DEFINITIONS ARE POSITIVE

LAW - SELF INTERPRETS/REALISES RIGHT DEFINITION

LAW - DEFINITIONS ARE FREE (FROM OTHER)


INTERPRETATION = DEFINITIONS ARE REALISED OR DEFINITIONS ARE INTERPRETED. VALUE REALISATION OR INTERPRETATION, ( VALUED AS WANTED )


Existence sets the condition ( interpretation or realisation of satisfactory definitions ).

Knowledge is awareness defined, with the definition being interpreted or realised. Also, thinking is interpreted or realised from sensory awareness or knowledge ( defined awareness (Knowledge implies definition)). Also, there are positives to thoughts and we thus value how we have them. As action contents are positive, we value interpretation or realisation of them.


LAW - WILL REALISES OR INTERPRETS RIGHT DEFINITION

LAW - DEFINITIONS HAVE POSITIVES

LAW - DEFINITIONS CAN REPEAT, OR PROGRESS LOGICALLY

LAW - YOU DONT DEFINE TOO MUCH OR TOO LITTLE

LAW - DEFINITIONS COST TIME


INTERPRETATION - WILL CONDITIONS LANGUAGE. IT REALISES POSITIVES FOR EFFICIENCY OR INTERPRETS FOR EFFECT FROM SENSE OR KNOWLEDGE. MEANING WILL CONDITIONS, INTERPRETING EFFECTIVENESS OR REALISING EFFICIENCY (Either relates cost and chooses effective positive abstracts, chooses effective interpretation OR realises maximum benefits and minimum costs in efficiently and accurately choosing definitions) OR INDIFFERENT WITH LANGUAGE.


As we dont think too much when its positive indicates cost-aversion. Definitions cost time yet we think positive definitions. We either rationally optimise language for positives and costs or we can effectively optimise language for positives and costs.

Benefits can be elaborated, or proofs formed. For example the statement "Mars is Cheese" is right grammar but, but has no benefit (value).


LAW - DEFINITIONS INTERPRETED/REALISED AS RIGHT

LAW - DEFINITIONS ARE POSITIVE

LAW - DEFINITIONS REPEATS, OR PROGRESSES LOGICALLY

LAW - YOU DONT THINK TOO MUCH OR LITTLE

LAW - DEFINITIONS COST TIME


INTERPRETATION - CONDITIONED SIMPLIFIED FACTORS ARE VALUED (HERE, "SENSE" IN WHAT YOU THINK)) THOUGHTS ARE EFFECTIVE POSITIVES, ARRANGED FOR A CSF. CONDITION TO CSF IS REALISATION OR INTERPRETATION OF POSITIVES. AS A LOGIC OF RIGHT LANGUAGE IS REALISED OR INTERPRETED AND SIMPLIFIED.


There are two ways of thinking, with realisation or interpretation as conditions. Realisation and simplification mean calculation for efficiency, realise the most efficient elaboration of language. Interpretation and simplification means effectiveness, interpret most effective elaboration of language.

When focusing on method to gain positives we focus on exploiting efficiency through rational calculation ( maximise positives, minimise cost - thus efficient realisation of rational language). Interpretation is a focus on effectiveness, exploiting interpretations.

Language is conditioned as positives are logically arranged for effectiveness or profit. Is simplified so as to not think too much, but at the same time elaborate satisfactory positives. Language is conditioned and simplified into a sense.

We realise or interpret thoughts, and thus the knowledge defining them. The apparents will realises definition and knowledge implies definition means some value knowledge through deduction, whereas the apparents will defines and Knowledge implies definition, means some value knowledge through interpretation.

There is a focus on method, realisation of knowledge.

LAW - KNOWLEDGE IMPLIES DEFINITION

LAW - WILL REALISES RATIONAL LANGUAGE


INTERPRETATION - WILL CALCULATES PROFITABLE LANGUAGE, RATIONAL CALCULATION IN ELABORATION OF KNOWLEDGE

Making choices between values and cost mean calculation of profitable knowledge as language. This means focus on calculation.

A focus on methods to gain positives means focus on efficiency. Where efficiency is the focus we are rational with what we think. Where knowledge implies definition, rational with knowledge.


LAW - DEFINITIONS ARE POSITIVE

LAW - VALUE EFFICIENCY OF THOUGHT TO SELF THROUGH REALISATION

LAW - KNOWLEDGE IMPLIES DEFINITION


INTERPRETATION - VALUE EFFICIENT, POSITIVE, KNOWLEDGE TO SELF. EFFICIENTLY REALISE KNOWLEDGE - DEDUCE KNOWLEDGE

Thinking is elaboration of effective positives arranged for a CSF, with interpretation or realisation as conditions. As knowledge implies definition, realising thoughts is realising knowledge - thus rational with knowledge. The more we value how thoughts are constructed, the more we value rationalism and knowledge. We are rational with knowledge ( elaborated in language ).

We either interpret effective senses to language ( Understanding of awareness ) or realise an efficient sense to language ( realise rational awareness ).


LAW - REALISED SIMPLIFIED SENSE TO THOUGHTS

LAW - KNOWLEDGE IMPLIES DEFINITION

LAW - WILL IS CONDITIONER

LAW - SATISFACTORY DEFINED AWARENESS (TRUTH TO AN INDIVIDUAL)


INTERPRETATION - CONDITION FOR EFFICIENCY OF STATUS AND TRUTH (RATIONAL)

We realise for status and truth (Its value, cost, and satisfactory defined awareness) to elaborate language. We elaborate given a condition (efficiency), we think in terms of a condition (efficiency).

or focus on content, outcome, effect, for interpretation.


LAW - WILL INTERPRETS/REALISES LANGUAGE

LAW - DEFINITIONS ARE ACTION-CONTENTS


INTERPRETATION - WILL INTERPRETS AWARENESS, THUS INTERPRETS CONTENTS TO LANGUAGE


When thinking we action content - when interpreting effect we interpret content.


LAW - DEFINITIONS ARE POSIITVE

LAW - VALUE EFFECTIVE THOUGHT TO SELF THROUGH INTERPRETATION

LAW - KNOWLEDGE IMPLIES DEFINITION


INTERPRETATION - VALUE EFFECTIVE, POSITIVE, KNOWLEDGE TO SELF. EFFECTIVELY INTERPRET KNOWLEDGE.


As knowledge implies deifinition, interpreting effective thoughts is interpreting knowledge - thus effective with knowledge. The more positives we see in any content, the more interpretations we make. The more we value awareness the more we value the contents of its definition, not how it was defined ( conditioning of it ).

LAW - INTERPRETED SIMPLIFIED SENSE TO THOUGHTS

LAW - KNOWLEDGE IMPLIES DEFINITION

LAW - WILL IS CONDITIONER


INTERPRETATION - CONDITION FOR EFFECTIVENESS OF STATUS AND TRUTH (UNDERSTANDING)


We interpret for status and truth to elaborate language; to elaborate knowledge. We interpret for effectiveness, understand in terms of effectiveness. Thoughts that are interpreted in language is understanding. Interpreted knowledge means understanding.

If knowledge is interpreted, we understand it. We either understand or we dont, we interpret or realise. If we favour understanding - we interpret.


LAW - WILL CONDITIONS OR HABITS

LAW - DEFINITIONS ARE SATISFACTORY

LAW - DEFINITIONS HAVE POSITIVES


INTERPRETATION - POSITIVES SATISFY REASON TO THINK, REASON ITSELF IS THUS A POSITIVE.


LAW - DEFINITIONS ARE SATISFACTORY

LAW - I THINK IN DEFINITIONS


INTERPRETATION - REASON TO THINKING ( thinking has a reason, it satisfys )


LAW - REASON TO THINKING ( IN DEFINITIONS )

LAW - KNOWLEDGE IMPLIES DEFINITION


INTERPRETATION - REASON TO KNOWLEDGE ( knowledge can have a reason, it satisfys )


LAW - OPPORTUNITY COST OF THINGS, RELATIONSHIPS AND ACTIVITIES IN KNOWLEDGE (see below)

LAW - REASON TO KNOWLEDGE

LAW - SATISFACTION TO GOODS RELATIONSHIPS AND ACTIVITIES (See below)


INTERPRETATION - REASON FOR GOODS, RELATIONSHIPS AND ACTIVITIES AS THESE ARE SATISFACTORY WHEN FORGOING KNOWLEDGE, THAT HAS A REASON.


There is reason to knowledge and when you give it up for something thats satisafactory then theres reason for that too. Reason is valued, as its why you think. There is reason for the knowledge you use, thus reason for other things. Efficient realisation means,


LAW - DEFINITION REALISED AS RIGHT

LAW - CONDITIONED SIMPLIFIED SENSE TO LANGUAGE

LAW - DEFINITIONS PROGRESS LOGICALLY

FACT - DEFINITIONS ARE USED


INTERPRETATION - RECOGNIZE LOGIC, RECOGNIZE RIGHT, THUS RIGHT CONTEXT OF DEFINITIONS. THEREFORE RECOGNIZE REALISED SENSE TO LANGUAGE, REALISE A SENSE TO LANGUAGE

When realising language, we realise it is used in the right context and logical. Thus we realise the sense to language and the awareness behind it.

For example we read "Libertarian-Socialism" and note that words are logical and realised in the right context to form a sense - a title. We know the awareness to "title". At the top of the document, "...I think therefore i am.." can be a realised simplified statement, ( we think therefore we exist ). This is the realised awareness being stated.

minimising costs in thinking reduces effects of thinking.

However effective interpretation means,


LAW - DEFINITIONS INTERPRETED RIGHT

LAW - INTERPRETED SIMPLIFIED SENSE TO LANGUAGE

LAW - DEFINITIONS PROGRESS LOGICALLY

FACT - DEFINITIONS USED


INTERPRETATION - GREATER UNDERSTANDING OF AWARENESS, OF KNOWLEDGE OR SENSE, AS ITS INTERPRETED RIGHT , UNDERSTAND VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS OF IT, INTERPRET VARIOUS LOGICS, INTERPRET VARIOUS RIGHTS.


Understanding is defined as interpreting effect, we do so when understanding language.
For example interpreting "...I think therefore I am..." as meaning thinking is subject to existence means we understand the awareness of thinking better, that thinking is being better understood. These different interpretations mean better awareneses and means greater understanding.


LAW - DEFINITIONS ARE SATISFACTORY

LAW - THINKING IS EFFECTIVENESS FOR CONDITIONAL SIMPLIFYING SENSE

LAW - REASON TO THINK


INTERPRETATION - SENSE IN LANGUAGE SATISFYS REASON TO THINK


The sense to a statement is the reason for the statement. For example, the sense to the interpretation "...I express my ..." at the top is description, this is also the reason. The reason to "libertarian-socialism" is that its a title.

LAW - UNDERSTAND SENSE TO EACH OTHERS LANGUAGE

LAW - SENSE IS REASON TO THINK


INTERPRETATION - UNDERSTAND EACH OTHERS REASONS, UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER.


As we understand the reasons behind the sense expressed, we understand each other. As all understanding revolves around interaction, understandings universal for interaction.

Will conditions language for interpretation or realisation. We realise a sense or interpret multiple senses. Sense is reason for language. Understanding reasons is understanding the other - understanding being common as interactions are common. As knowledge is effective awareness arranged for a CSF, relatively high belief in humanity means focus on awareness, thus effectiveness ( Interpretive condition ). Its a focus on awareness not how its elaborated. Relatively valuing knowledge, means focus on CSF ( Rational condition ).

The common understanding is informed by interaction (awareness). A focus on the common understanding is a focus on awareness, otherwise rational to the self thus realise.

Knowledge is free, not shared (intentions) but still valued. When definitions are shared they are a communication, not a sharing of the knowledge.


LAW - self-interested about knowledge ( see below )

LAW - will conditions knowledge or indifferent to it

LAW - Positive abstracts (including satisfaction) in knowledge

FACT - rational or effective opportunity cost of goods and activities in knowledge

FACT - irrational opportunity cost (only) of interactions

LAW - understand reasons of other

LAW - value in reason


INTERPRETATION - Will conditions ( to self, except relationships), favours effectiveness or profit in consumption of positive abstracts in goods, activities, and relationships as they have a cost in knowledge. Will favours most value ( best good ) or consumer profit (best-deal ). Although activities and goods are probably values, will is conditioner of effect with interactions, interactions that have irrational opportunity costs when understanding the other. That is a significant indicator that relationships are a believed interaction understanding - that is a faith in the effect of the understanding or belief in the reasons for an understanding; around interactions between others. It takes two to exist so is a subject outside the self, and as reason is valued, reasoned and understood as possibly faith or a belief.

As the intercourses are irrational, and require the other, we have similar beliefs/faiths. That is when we understand the others reasons for an irrational relationship, then we believe in a common understanding (interpreted effect) for all such intercourses. Irrational intercourses are similar (appropriate behaviour, communication - "humanity") thus resultant understanding is common not unique. Humanity is a belief-faith in a common understanding - something common to all relationships. 

Belief is defined as "irrational confidence in something being true", belief in humanity is an irrational confidence in the common interpreted interaction-effects (interaction understandings) being true. Faith, however, is the expectation of good fortune - expectation of the effect of the common understanding.

However, we run with the interpretation of humanity being a belief - as it is interpreted that relationships are by definition satisfactory, when we are not self-interested about them. It is an understanding we are confident is true to both. As relationships are true, our awareness of interaction is satisfactory (satisfactory awareness is truth). Also, faith in the effect implies relationships are ultimately overtly self-interested.

Effectiveness is value of ferrari, efficiency is consumer profit of a new M3 for £5,000. Consumer profit greater with M3, ferrari more valuable.

SO, for example if someone had £600,000 exactly to buy a ferrari, and wasnt willing to pay more, and they saw a M3 on discount on the way - then theres two types of person. One type will stop the car and buy the M3 ( you would be mad not to) other types will still go for the ferrari as buying the M3 is false economy2

de3c72_d44d727c9b2645cfa004b3449c795de9~mv2.webp

We may demand different, unique effects between us. We charge a low price and forgo producer profit or charge a high price and demand less consumer profit. However, producers may not know if their customers are effective or rational - as rational conditioners will leave the market.

We also demand common goods, effects we all demand. We all demand common goods, but this means inelastic supply as demands increase on capital goods market, specialized capital and labour becoming scarce. The opportunity cost of this labour and capital increase. Thus when forgoing consumer profit for a common good on markets would mean a high price due to this inelastic supply, a high price to remunerate the opportunity cost of not investing in capital for production for profit, but investing in capital for production of common goods.
de3c72_f874f4f00ef446a2974d71d1893f62c3~mv2.png

It would be better to have an understanding of investment in common goods not investment in profit on markets. This is forgoing producer profits on markets to expand supply of common goods while charging a lower price. This is done by the state having a monopoly on investment thus in effect a monopsony on capital goods. The price of capital goods doesnt reflect the demands of common and consumer good producers together, but the demands of the common good market alone. There is an irrational understanding of reducing investment in profit, in competing demands on capital goods and specialized labour, to the common goods market. There will be more common goods and less producer profit produced. effective. 

de3c72_e951ffe8df6e4df4b4b0ec9e5f5b76d9~mv2.png

Thus we have an understanding of expanding common good supply at the same rate as reducing supply in producer profit, as opposed to forgoing alot of consumer profit for less common goods on markets. Thus supply of common goods expands at a greater amount than a market would, and at a lower price. We effectively lose producer profit and gain effective housing as resources are invested irrationally.

An example of irrational production is affordable housing. This is where most individuals can afford housing, but the market will produce conservatories and housing adaptations for more profit. Thus with markets, remunerating the producer for forgoing conservatories etc (profit) and building houses means the consumer pays a high price (forgoing consumer profit to do so).The inelasticity of supply means supplying all with housing comes with a high price - consumers forgoing alot of consumer profit for a home. Its better to have an understanding of investment in housing not profit.

We in effect forgo less producer profit for housing as a society, compared to consumer profit as individuals. An understanding of forgoing producer profit is forgoing some output while forgoing consumption on markets is effectively forgoing alot of output.

So, We have an understanding for more housing production as opposed to slightly more housing on markets. 

Interpreting the effect of housing, is interpreting the common good. Common goods are defined as “...goods where opportunity cost is not a factor in demand of the first unit - only possibly with other common goods....”, SO, housing, food (when starving), education (first words read), health, heating and clothing are common goods. They are essential, so no matter what the price of other goods - opportunity cost will not effect the demand of the first unit. Housing is valued as products are forgone, but as this opportunity cost is not a factor in housing demand, it indicates an effective understanding, but theres no comparison.

As goods and activities are values, then rational or effective with them. As relationships are irrational, they effective.

THE INDIVIDUAL (Will is Independent)

                                            I-------->KNOWLEDGE ( Truth, right, value )

                                      I---------->GOODS

                 POSITIVE ABSTRACT CONDITIONER

                                      I-------->ACTIVITIES

                                            I-------->RELATIONSHIPS ( Belief or faith etc )


As there is opportunity cost in knowledge of these then these are positive abstracts (not necessarilly values ). As humanity is not always rational (facts of opportunity costs ) but we value reason and understand each other, we interpret humanity as a faith/belief in a common understanding. Humanity is a relationship between others, a subject. Humanity is a given, we are conditioners.

We either believe in reasons for relationships (including humanity - the common elements) or have faith in effects of relationships, faith in effects of humanity. It is not a construct as theres interactions involved which the relationship revolves around. We either believe in reasons for the NHS, or have faith in its effects. The NHS is an interaction understanding. We interpret resources for the effect of healthcare, over profit.

So relationships have irrational opportunity costs sometimes in knowledge, this is interpreted as a belief or faith by the individual. Interdependent relationship, as it is believed in by both, it takes two to exist. As we value reason, the elaboration is reasoned as a belief, thus we can indulge in relationships even though it can be irrational.


LAW - DEFINITIONS ARE SATISFACTORY

LAW - WE THINK IN DEFINITIONS

LAW - DEFINITIONS BENEFIT SELF


INTERPRETATION - SELF-INTERESTED ABOUT THOUGHTS


LAW - THINKING IS INTERDEPENDENT

LAW - SELF-INTERESTED ABOUT THOUGHTS

LAW - KNOWLEDGE IMPLIES DEFINITION (VICE VERSA)


INTERPRETATION - SELF-INTERESTED ABOUT KNOWLEDGE, BUT INTERDEPENDENT


LAW - SELF-INTERESTED ABOUT KNOWLEDGE

FACT - OPPORTUNITY COST OF GOODS AND ACTIVITIES IN TERMS OF KNOWLEDGE

FACT - OPPORTUNITY COST OF IRRATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS IN TERMS OF KNOWLEDGE


INTERPRETATION - SELF-INTERESTED GOODS AND ACTIVITIES, NOT RELATIONSHIPS.


You are self-interested but its tempered by humanity, self-interest itself wont change.

As definitions have satisfying benefits, we are self-interested about them, thus knowledge ( but interdependent ). Opportunity cost means self-interested about goods and activities, not relationships.

Family, offence and success or failure ( in positive abstract dynamics) for individual and/or groups determines humanity. Success or failure in social, family or individual units and offence effect the belief in humanity.

Social conditions (an understanding of effectiveness for society) is the condition of effective positive abstracts considering cost, for groups or societies as a whole. The social condition is irrational and effective economy. Irrational finance (welfare - irrational insurance for society), and irrational real economy ( public services, production for the common good, and occasionally production generally - irrational production). This is will being a positive effect conditioner but as we value reason - we believe in humanity. Reason for relationships is believed.

Success as a group means relationships are believed in.


LAW - OPTIMISE PRODUCTION

LAW - WILL IS CONDITIONER

LAW - VALUE REASON

FACT - OCCASIONAL IRRATIONAL COST


INTERPRETATION - COOPERATION IN PRODUCTION, RELATIONSHIPS BELIEVED IN AS SOMETIMES IRRATIONAL.

Where we come together for production, and occasionally irrational, then success means appreciation of irrational relationships.

There is effective production as market wont produce effect satisfactorilly. This is because theres more profit in alternatives ( Although alternative is a lower value, it has far lower cost so relativley more profit ), an opportunity cost of effective goods in terms of profitable goods. Effective products not produced by the market.
de3c72_2693aa99b1524568a36d0bda9e9c198e~mv2.png

That is, where demand switches from profitable goods to effective goods - then on the effect market the demand curve moves right (demand increasing). This increases supply cost, thus the price, and as a result opportunity cost rises.

This means output increases slightly, and price increases.

It would be advisable to invest in the effect, expand supply and thus reduce opportunity cost. This will mean greater output at a lower price.

Thus with effective conditioners - its better to have an understanding of investment in effective production, at the expense of profitable goods.

For example in-depth ( effective ) art and culture documentaries are compared to other, cheaper shows on the market. It would be better for an understanding (BBC) to produce these shows ignoring higher profits. This increasing supply thus reducing price, satisfying more effective conditioners (More effectors are demanding these goods than rational conditioners).

Demand for the common good, is a demand for irrational relationships by everyone. Satisfactory effective goods means satisfactory relationships, believed to be humanity.

LAW - ALL DEMAND COMMON GOODS

LAW - COMMON AND EFFECTIVE GOODS REQUIRE RELATIONSHIPS

LAW - WILL IS CONDITIONER

LAW - VALUE REASON

FACT - IRRATIONAL OPPORTUNITY COSTS OF COMMON AND EFFECTIVE GOODS IN PROFITABLE ALTERNATIVES.


INTERPRETATION - SUCCESS IN PRODUCTION OF COMMON GOOD MEANS RELATIONSHIPS SATISFACTORY. AS RELATIONSHIPS SATISFACTORY THEN RELATIONSHIPS BELIEVED TO BE SATISFACTORY FOR EFFECTIVENESS. EFFECT THUS RELATIONSHIPS OPENLY DEMANDED. RELATIONSHIPS BELIEVED IN FROM SUCCESS; UNDERSTOOD TO DELIVER EFFECTIVE VALUE.


When demand common goods ( NHS etc ) then demand irrational relationship between consumers and producers. Where this satisfied - belief in relationship for all effective goods appreciates. Where successful with effective goods, then relationship believed in.

Satisfaction of common good ( NHS, BBC ) is satisfaction of demand for effectiveness. As this is done through cooperative relationships, satisfactory common good determines whether relationships are satisfactory. As this is sometimes irrational, relationships believed in.

Effective conditioners consider value in consumption - as opposed to consumer profit.


FACT - PEPSI £1, TANGO £2 ( AVAILABLE )

FACT - AT THIS PRICE SIMILAR DEMANDS RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER, BUT CHANGING OVERALL

FACT - NO DEMAND FOR TANGO £2.10, HIGHER DEMAND FOR PEPSI

LAW - DIMINISHING MARGINAL BENEFIT


INTERPRETATION - Demand is 50 for both, or 60 for both or 80 for both when Tango £2. Demand is higher for Pepsi and very low for Tango when Tango £2.10. Opportunity cost of Tango in Pepsi being too irrational is only explanation. As will is a conditioner, then avoiding this cost means comparisons are made.


As comparisons are made then both are valued, so as benefits Diminish with consumption of either good, theres higher opportunity costs ( where for example at £2, consuming Pepsi means diminishing benefit ( value ) to it, not Tango, thus increasing opportunity costs of pepsi in terms of the first unit of Tango ). As this opportunity cost is avoided and demand equates, then we interpret that demand switches between the two (avoiding the opportunity cost created by diminishing benefits). Opportunity cost in terms of each other is the same, similar value then.

Virtually no demand at £2.10 despite diminishing marginal benefit in pepsi means tango worth £2. Pepsi worth £2 too as thats a similar value.


LAW - OPPORTUNTIY COST AVOIDED AS WILL IS A CONDITIONER AND EXPLAINS DEMAND

FACT - DEMAND EQUATES WITH PRICED AT £2, COMPARISONS MADE

LAW - DIMINISHING BENEFIT


INTERPRETATION - DEMAND SWITCHES EQUALLY BETWEEN THE TWO, SIMILAR OPPORTUNITY COSTS IN TERMS OF EACH OTHER, THUS SIMILAR VALUES OF £2 THEN


As demand switches between the two when comparing for opportunity cost, opportunity cost in each other is the same, they have similar values then.

Similar values does not mean use-value as they do not have similar forms. For example, intrinsic relationships ( skipping school ) is compared to geography. Similar value is similar effectiveness.


FACT - IRRATIONAL CONTRIBUTION TO PUBLIC GOOD

FACT - BENEFITS OF PUBLIC GOOD


INTERPRETATION - IN EFFECT FINANCIAL COOPERATION FUNDING PUBLIC SERVICES, AND SHARED BENEFITS TO PUBLIC SERVICES. DETERMINANT OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OTHERS. REASONED AS HUMANITY ( BELIEF )


We can see the greater benefits in producing for social objectives (lower cost (fact)) and consuming socially (As a group).

In simple terms, we demand public goods like education (knowledge benefits all) or military (benefits all). These are non-excludable goods, which implies relationship being believed in. We are best satisfied by public provision, that is usually production by an non-profit authority for a society as a whole. We pool earned resources ( tax ) and share benefits thus in effect cooperate.

Aslo there is interdependence of production for the common good.


LAW - WE DONT DEFINE TOO MUCH OR TOO LITTLE

LAW - DEFINITIONS BENEFIT SELF

LAW - STATEMENTS REQUIRE CARE AND ATTENTION

LAW - SELF INTERPRETS/REALISES RIGHT DEFINITION

LAW - DEFINITIONS CAN BE OFFENSIVE

LAW - WE INTERPRET/REALISE OFFENCE

LAW - UNDERSTAND REASONS OF OTHER


INTERPRETATION - OFFENCE IS A DETERMINANT OF HUMANITY. RECIPIENT CARES ABOUT REASONS FOR OFFENCE, OFFENDER INTENDED IT. UNDERSTAND REASONS FOR OFFENCE, BREACHES UNDERSTANDING AROUND IRRATIONAL INTERACTION, BREACHES COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF ALL SUCH RELATIONSHIPS. BOTH BELIEVE IN COMMON UNDERSTANDING LESS.


As humanity is an subjective relationship as it takes two to exist. It is partially determined by offence by one to another. The recipient cares about the offence, the offender intended it.


FACT - FAMILY PRACTICE REQUIRES RELATIONSHIPS

FACT - CHOICE OF FAMILY PRACTICE, OR SELF, WITH GOODS

LAW - VALUE TO GOODS

LAW - VALUE REASON


INTERPRETATION - FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS CONSTITUTE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OTHERS, HUMANITY.


Family practice is a belief in relationships not love - or all families would do it.

As knowledge is still chosen over goods etc (conditioner), then goods, relationships and activities consumed bear diminishing marginal benefits also. As abstracts depreciate or appreciate relative to humanity, they are a determinant of humanity.


LAW - UNDERSTANDING IN LANGUAGE SATISFYS

LAW - WE THINK IN DEFINITIONS

LAW - DEFINITIONS COST TIME

LAW - DEFINITIONS PROGRESS LOGICALLY

LAW - VALUE SIMPLICITY


INTERPRETATION - SENSE TO LANGUAGE PROGRESSIVELY MORE COMPLICATED; MORE WORDS MAKES SENSE MORE COMPLICATED. AS WORDS PROGRESS, ADDING TO THE SENSE, COMPLICATIONS ACCUMULATE. DIMINISHING MARGINAL SATISFACTORY UNDERSTANDING IS DIMINISHING MARGINAL BENEFIT, AND INCREASING COMPLICATIONS MEAN INCREASING MARGINAL COST.


As definitions progress logically, then the sense and resultant awareness gets more complicated. marginal. This is in effect diminishing benefit due to value of simplicity, and increasing marginal cost to knowledge.


LAW - DIMINSHING BENEFIT AND INCREASING COST TO KNOWLEDGE

FACT - OCCASIONALLY CHOOSE KNOWLEDGE OVER OTHER POSITIVE ABSTRACTS

FACT - OCCASIONALLY CHOOSE ABSTRACTS OVER KNOWLEDGE


INTERPRETATION - INCREASING COST AND DIMINISHING BENEFIT TO POSITIVE ABSTRACTS


Humanity is thus determined by social conditions, offence or success and failure and constituted by family. Successful social conditions requires successful relationships, production generally also. Irrationally satisfying the common good for all appreciates relationships. Offence is a negative relationship. There is diminishing marginal benefit in goods, knowledge and activities meaning success or failure determines humanity.


FACT - COOPERATE AT WORK

LAW - WILL IS CONDITIONAL

LAW - BELIEF IN COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF OTHERS


INTERPRETATION - UNDERSTAND EACH OTHERS CONDITIONS AND COOPERATE (FOR A ENTERPRISE TO SUCCEED) THUS SATISFY EACH OTHER. ENTERPRISE RELATIONSHIPS MEAN INDIVIDUALS SATISFY EACH OTHER; MEANING HIGHER PRODUCTIVITY.


To cooperate irrationally means greater satisfaction of conditions. The other satisfys the self, due to a belief as occasionally irrational.

Humanity is not god, humanity is interpreted as the highest stage of evolution, with acts of humanity merely incidental side effects to the rationale of evolution. We are "positive abstract conditioners", we interpret/realise positives differently everywhere, and relationships are irrational. Positive-forms are different between things, let alone between belief/faith in relationships and goods, many A-political.

These are interpretations/realisations of everything outside self. For example, where knowledge is strong relative to humanity we are rational with the other (study and realise). Where humanity is strong, we are understanding. The difference is, for example where Joe tells you on monday hes buying a computer tomorrow, then on Tuesday you see him, walking whilst passing on the bus, with a box - you realise hes on his way. Left-wing values interpret hes on his way to sell his computer first as the assumption he has the money was made. Left-wingers interpreting awareness ( what they see ), where as you realised based on knowledge (what you were told).

A strong belief in the common understanding ( prefer awareness of interaction) means awareness and interpretation of it in our thoughts. Focus on awareness means interpreting effective awareness when we think.

A lesser belief in the common interpreted effect means knowledge informs our thoughts. This means we rationally realise an awareness when we think.

We essentially think two ways. We either prefer awareness through senses and also interpret effective positives/awareness in knowledge, or we prefer CSFs and rational thus efficient realisation of positives/awareness. Where we are rational we value knowledge, where we interpret awareness, we believe in relationships. Finally, where rationalism and knowledge to the self valued more than humanity then right wing beliefs. Where humanity believed then left wing. It depends on humanity. Humanity is constituted and determined.

Higher belief in interaction understanding means we prefer awareness and are thus more effective or understanding. Where value knowledge more, then analytical of awareness.

(BELIEF IN COMMON INTERACTION UNDERSTANDING)

HIGH BELIEF (BELIEVE IN COMMON UNDERSTANDING)>Interpret my subjectively effective relationships for this>Focus on awareness for this>Understanding with language then>Interpret know.>Interpret effect (Pos.Abstracts)>Relationships for these>Outcome for relationship>Satisfying Beliefs

LOW BELIEF (REALISE SELF-INTEREST)>Realise my subjectively profitable defined awareness for this>Focus on profit for this>Rational with language then>Profitable know.>Realise profit (Pos. Abstracts)>Profitable relationships for these>CSF for relationship>Satisfying Beliefs

We are either self-interested and thus profitably define our awareness to ourselves (realise the world we are in, in our own terms), or we believe in a common understanding - informed by irrational interaction.

This means we are either effective or rational with the language of thoughts, thus the knowledge defining them. We either demand profitable or effective goods thereby have satisfying beliefs in human relationships.


Satisfaction of demand for effect, or satisfaction of rational demand for profit >

EFFECTIVE/INTERPRETIVE                                                                            MORALITY             
          NATURE                                                                                              EQUALITY                                                                     
                                                                  EFFECT                     
                                                       POSITIVE ABSTRACTS                                                                                                   
                                                                 PROFIT                                           
RATIONAL/DEDUCTIVE                                                                                  FREEDOM
          NATURE                                                                                                    ORDER

Effective/Interpretive > understanding with relationships, activities, knowledge and goods

Rational/deductive > Rational with knowledge, goods, activities, and relationships


Rationalisation (forced resourcefulness) due to humanity depreciation (failure) is evidence. Note, these are beliefs in relationships (interaction understandings). Eg - belief in the understanding of equality in positives, rather than realise profit.


Morality - High humanity, understanding/interpretive and effective right, social interest, tolerant

Equality - Cooperative, interpretive, effective

Freedom - Independent, rational efficient

Order - Low humanity, Rational and efficient right, self-interest, intolerant ( of technical wrong due to value of efficiency)

Order (Effective operation, considering rational self) is understood as a condition in which to operate and satisfy rational self. Order is thus believed when rational to the self (in order for you to “sort it out” society must function adhering to self-interest, thus theres a right in society (eg - operation), thus law and order (anti-theft etc)).

Freedom (Effective choice, considering rational self-interest) Freedom is choice given a condition of rational self-interest in the self and from others. Free from control but conditioned by the rational self-interest in the interaction with others. SO, freedom is believed in, as its conducive to choice in positive abstracts. Individual choice is paramount.

Equality (Effective social conditions, considering effective outcome (status)) Outcomes bestow status to individuals. Equality is believed in when effect is valued. If we want an effectiveness, we want irrational relationships. Social conditions. With equality, the equal status of individuals determines the effective outcome, the outcome that is the factor to effective conditions. For example, instead of profit the status (entitlement) of individuals determines the outcome, thus the form, structure etc of the NHS. Thus when we want effective products we want cooperation, if we want cooperation we want the conditions for it - equality. We understand the other must benefit equally in order to cooperate fully.

Morality (Effective family, arranged for effective outcome) is condition for strong irrational relationships, understanding for outcome.


Where efficient realisation preferred, CSF preferred to Pos. Abstracts. To satisfy efficient realsiation of positive abstarcts, then society arranged for operative-activation (rational-operation) to best satisfy self-interest (currently capitalism).

Where interpreting effect, outcome preferred in Pos. Abstracts preferences. To satisfy effectiveness in positive abstracts, then society arranged for an interpreted outcome (an understanding) - can be communism3.

Criminals dont believe in anything, when rational to the self - low humanity relative to other abstracts (Anti-socials). Evil dont believe in humanity at all (Non-believers).


LAW - Satisfactory defined awareness

LAW - rational or interpretive of knowledge

LAW - Reason to thinking


Interpretation - Perceived truth or status to knowledge. As awareness is satisfactory then its true to an individual. Understanding effects, values and cost means understanding relevant statuses, status to knowledge.


LAW - STATUS AND TRUTH ARE POSITIVES TO KNOWLEDGE

LAW - KNOWLEDGE IMPLIES DEFINITION

LAW - THINKING IS EFFECTIVE POSITIVE, ARRANGED FOR CSF

LAW - CONDITIONING VALUES


INTERPRETATION - TRUTH AND STATUS TO THOUGHTS, INDEPENDENT OF CONDITIONING VALUES,


You may value thought outcome, but this outcome might be a definition implied by right-wing knowledge. Status and truth to content more important than conditioning value. Realise left-wing truth or interpret right-wing truth. Which means thoughts exemplify a different content than what should be believed.

For example, Where you may have equality knowledge with low humanity; this being evident in the phrase "...Order believers have lower beliefs than mine...", where elitist feelings conflict with egalitarian knowledge, due to perceived status or truth to equality.


FACT - THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS CAN CONFLICT

LAW - TRUTH OR STATUS TO THOUGHTS

LAW - OFFENCE IS FELT


INTERPRETATION - “TRUE” DEFINED AWARENESS (OF BELIEFS) AND HUMANITY CAN BE DIFFERENT. FALSE AWARENESS. IN EFFECT THINK AND FEEL DIFFERENT BELIEFS.


Thoughts and feelings are sensed, but what they mean can conflict. The phrase “..order believers...” means elitism (elitist feelings behind statement) whilst also meaning egalitarian criticism (egalitarian thoughts to statement).

Offence determines humanity (feeling), knowledge implies thoughts. Thoughts and feelings can conflict, thus humanity and thoughts can conflict. False awareness. False knowledge.


LAW - Status and truth to knowledge

LAW - False Awareness or not

LAW - Will is conditioner


INTERPRETATION - Will is conditioner of truth and status, or conditioner from the self.


Where humanity high, common understanding believed in and the interaction thought about. More understanding and thus interpretive of subjects. Where humanity low, then rational to the self. More rational and thus realise the subject. We are either interpret outcomes and thus moral or egalitarian, or rational to the self and free/in order. False Awareness is thinking a different sense to what is implied.


Conclusion


There is existence, thinking and awareness.

Colour is a variant subject, showing we realise or interpret what we sense. We also realise or interpret what we think, with existence seting one of these conditions for the two ways of thinking. These thoughts are interdependence of knowledge ( defined awareness ) and will.

There are positives to the definitions we think. Thinking is effective positive language, arranged for a conditioned simplified sense. There are two ways of thinking, "will defines" and "will realises definition", interpretation or realisation of language. Understanding to Interpret effective language or analyze to realise rational language. Will is a conditioner of language - interpreting for effect or realising for profit. As this language is satisfactory, then theres reason to think.

Realising language is realising a logic and thus the sense. Interpreting language is interpreting many logics, meaning this way of thinking is more effective. Sense is reason for language, understanding this is understanding the other.

As surrendering effective or profitable knowledge, then choosing effective or profitable goods, activities and relationships. Opportunity cost of irrational intercourses between others means common understanding believed in. As we exist with others, with the same relationships, means same understandings, due to value of reason.

Success or failure in social, family or individual units and offence determines humanity (social conditions, offence, economy and family).

Social conditions ( an understanding of effectiveness for society ) requires relationships. Also, cooperation in any enterprise means relationships. Effective goods are made by state as market wont - this satisfaction of the common good for all individuals means relationships believed in.

There are thus two ways of thinking due to humanity - this constituted and determined. This translates into interpreting outcomes or operatively-activating a method. These lead to beliefs of morality, equality, freedom and order.

Morality have the most humanity and order the least. Morality are tolerant and interpret effective right. Equality are cooperative, freedom independent and order realise rational and efficient right.

These relationships are believed in to satisfy family, social conditions, choice and self respectively.

Knowledge implies thoughts and offence is felt, thus as thoughts and feelings can conflict so can knowledge and humanity.

                                                                                        ---------------------------------

Relationships probably started as an instrument to hunt and for safety (Pre-civilized man is found buried with healed broken bones and expensive tools and similar symbols - implying irrational relationships (An otherwise hunter was fed while bones healed, yet buried with similar status). the meaning of which came to be interpreted as a belief or faith, its not a value. We interpreted the effect of ritual burial for each other, rather than independently rationally realise profit (opportunity cost of trading the ornaments) although an anti-social might. This is when we spoke in a language thus understood the reasons for each other - there was thus a relationship understanding.

The interpreted effect maybe defined by social understandings, such as false awareness and law. Culture (understanding for positives) and religion determined pre-industrial societies, dictating the interpreted effect (eg - spartan military). That is, before knowledge of political-economy, that is to say religious or cultural false knowledge.

Relationships have social and individual determinants - success, peace and family in short. However, this does not mean a progression to morality, we are not all moral for a reason. To sum, when times are good we socialise, when times are bad we roll-up our sleeves and sort it out.

1Ideas are suggestions of awareness from the self ( suggested knowledge )
2Value effectiveness is interpreting optimal effects, higher value. Cost-efficiency is realising profit through cost minimisation, higher profit.
3 Capitalism and communism are far from perfect, but on paper satisfy either one of the two ways of thinking. Also, as fascism was disastrous when practiced, its not effective operation.

Last edited by rhodri (28-06-2018 06:53:45)

Avatar

By AKmatiAK 23-06-2018 09:49:57

Administrator · 15 comments

Soo much reading tongue You wrote it?


communism smile

Avatar

By rhodri 23-06-2018 14:26:53

Member · 5 comments

Yeh I took my time and thought it through. I had the idea of “will realises meaning” and went from there - it’s mostly my ideas ( on understanding etc) apart from definitions (of freedom etc) and famous concepts like diminishing benefit.

I have to say it fits with what I think, that capitalism is not how the liberals describe it ( I’m not opening a book store when I’m competent and want too, as it’s not about free-will) and human nature  isn’t as simple as to fit Paretos models. However I think we are individuals - it’s why when someone breaks the law you don’t arrest the working class or the estate, you arrest an individual as reasons are individual.

Anyhow comrades I hope it isn’t to bad! and us marxists and libertarian socialists can agree on an end to capitalism.

Last edited by rhodri (23-06-2018 14:27:34)