I think you need to put any discussion of this on [OT] if 
not [OT][WOT][HUMANIST RELIGION][:-)]  if it is to survive 
more than two cycles without self immolating.

However, as I (God willing) fly to China to pursue further 
or respond to a number of the goals urges and drives that 
you mention below, plus those of my client and his Chinese 
contractors to boot, in a bit over 14 hours, I'll limit my 
self to one (maybe)(longish) comment, rather than spending 
the interesting hours it deserves in response.

> There are probably 3 basic human attributes that any 
> structure needs to address
> - greed, cause, and creativity. A free market with minimal 
> constraints can keep
> greed occupied, but communism never addresses or assumes 
> this.

ALL "cause" is mirage, phantasm, pretence, self delusion 
without an absolute reference outside the system. The ONLY 
system that makes sense in this context is what we call "the 
universe". We can conceive of larger/greater systems than 
this and people postulate them (even in populist 
entertainment such as MIB2!) BUT the universe is as far as 
our senses will thus far and possibly ever let us reach.

One cut-to-the-chase, China is calling, version of this is - 
"If your cause is not founded in God then it has no basis in 
reality or usefulness that somebody else cannot deny 
entirely justifiably". ***OBVIOUSLY*** that statement will 
be utterly unsatisfactory to any God deniers and not wholly 
satisfactory to most others. This doesn't make it untrue 
(and it is true [tm]). It does NOT say that "God exists" - 
just that if God is not the basis for one's foundational 
references then you have no valid foundational references. 
If God does not exist then there are none. So, this is not 
an argument for the existence of God, just a comment on the 
implications of a system with or without God.

Rutherford said that there was Physics and the rest, and 
that the rest was stamp collecting. Even so great a man (and 
NZer ;-) 0 as he failed to see that Physics is also stamp 
collecting. ALL we can do is observe. We can insists that 
things must be as we wish, must have cause, must have 
foundation, must have reason, ARE right etc, but without 
external reference it's all stamp collecting.

Some get highly incensed by this assertion of the need for 
absolute reference and easily prove to their own 
satisfaction (but never to mine alas) that they/we can build 
valid and meaningful systems on a lesser and relative 
foundation. Doesn't work :-(.

While that ramble may seem like a rather irrelevant 
digression, if its not addressed in the foundations to one's 
studies of the subject then all the rest is stamp 
collecting. We may prefer a given stamp, or insist that it 
is better or prettier or more valuable or purer or just 
plain "right". But until we accept that we cannot ever be a 
meaningful arbiter the other guy's dissenting opinion is 
every bit as invalid as our own.






                    Russell




-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist