I'm Optimistic v.02

In my previous post, I'm talking about finding that "standard for the appropriate magnitudes of rewards" would be the next singularity... I think this is not just standard, this has a "Constant" element to it. 

Personally, I believe that this is true, but I have no proof yet:

"Evil is a real concept (an absolute concept) and the Magnitude of Evil is measurable"

"Consequences of Evil could be dispersed or managed"
"Lowering one's expectations of rewards can not reduce the total magnitude of evil invoked, it will just disperse/bend the focus"

and from the previous post "Evil is inevitably invoked by lack of reciprocity"

I'm optimistic that this could be discovered empirically

Love of Money, Gini Ratio v.02

If you look at the research done about relationship of crime and the Gini Ratio, Gini Ratio being the rate of income inequality within a region, it is positively correlated. So if there were a lot of disparities in income, crime rate is higher, equal amounts of income, lower. 

On one hand you want to reward the people who have performed well, on the other hand you also want to keep the crimes low. Some people, a religion in particular proposed a solution that people shouldn't show off their wealth. This has a strong reasoning, however it is kind of sad and demeaning of humanity how people are so unable to deal with this, it is a bad thing to be luxurious ever once in a while (but it seems to me that it is the Truth). 

The Love of Money is the root of all evil, Jesus said. And it goes both ways, the service receptor loved money so much they refused to reward, the service provider loved money so much they refused to cease from being bitter about not getting the amounts they expected to get.

We, the Asian Oriental community, tend to point fingers at people who negotiate and asking for more money, people who are dissatisfied with their rewards. And this is also a working solution. Lower the expectations, and so, lower the evil. 

Is there a way, or is there an empirically accurate way of setting the standard on the rewards? Too many factors to consider different point of views are all relevant. The rarity, the sustainability of the benefits, the strategical positioning of the solutions, the hard work put, the damages or consequences of having the problem not solved otherwise... 

Look, I hate the fact that actually I'm the problem here... I'm the one who breed dissatisfaction among some people about the rewards they deserve. 

But really, putting the expectation down is the solution instead of actually rewarding them?  

To continue the previous 2 paragraphs:

The state of the environment, I mean to illustrate, when the COVID outbreak is rampant, it is not reasonable to set high expectations... a lot of point of views are relevant and that's why individual negotiations instead of centralized price fixing is encouraged. 

But damn, if we solve this problem... everything will definitely be much better. This is the next singularity

Wild but maybe true v.02

I think, it would be viable to research this notion:

"The development of evil is directly caused by lack of reciprocity"

So whenever there was a person who have solved problems not getting paid or rewarded. You'd be certain that evil is growing in that environment. 

Corruption, depression, lies, maliciousness, unproductive contentions. 

So if this were true, society could reliably shift some of the responsibilities from the perpetrators.

I know its sounds despicable and lazy, to me too, but if this is true that the growth of evil is certain, inevitable whenever there's a lack of reciprocity in the air. 

Then more appropriate measures could be made... not necessarily monetary or materialistic commodity wise, but also escape wise.

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

Imagine this scenario, ok... 

A priest and a nun in a village, often take care of people, giving them food and medicine. 

One day they ran out, and one of them got sick. 

Then instead of spreading the word of God in the community, the Priest then started to conjure some Christian mysticism... 

The Village then got excited and started to brought fruits, vegetables, and other resources for the superficial expectations. 

Then it got escalated, one myth to another, some people in the village tried to conjure up their own version for their own interests, the Priest can't say nothing against it. Hell, he got into the act for extra benefits. 

Now the village is a scary village where outsiders who saw from third party point of view what was happening, were threatened with all kinds of intimidation. 

Then violent services became relevant, traders would start to form some family based gangs. But then... the gang was rewarded little... 

The Gang went rouge, starting to ask for "protection" money here and there, hence the formation of other gangs...

The Priest... started to conjure out battle blessings and charge for money. The money then used to bribe the strongest people to "protect" the church. 

And so on and so on.... 

Yes Yes Yes and Yes but Yes it is Yes

Yes when it comes to the Truth
He is too great for a mind to fathom
Yes we don't really know what we are talking about
When we are using Words
But
It is the Truth

It is just relativity
Just relativity, but Yes it is
It is the Truth

We don't really know what we are talking about
Yes Yes Yes
But
It is also the Truth

The Truth has revealed Himself to us through the Word
The Word, The Word of the Truth
It is just relativity
The Word
But Yes,
      it is also the Truth

I don't really know what I'm talking about
However...

The Truth is
The Truth will always be
Embracing me

Through the Word
Yes it is
...

Just relativity
But Yes it is
            ...

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

It is ok though, It is fine

It is just The Truth

The Truth through The Word, Relativity

It is ok for us... it is fine

Relativity, is ok

Absolutely...

Yes it is

Focus, Property

Now why do we have personal property?

In my opinion personal property is an artificial right. No one is born with land, or gold, or whatever it is we know as personal property. Except our body such as our limbs maybe those are indeed examples of divine personal properties, maybe, honestly its too complicated for me now. But for sure things such as the ownership of land and other goods are those that are maintained by people, governments in particular.

What makes them essential is that without them the level of availability of mutual solutions would decrease. First of all personal interests must be exalted for the idea of mutual solutions would work, not group interests, personal interests. And then, for the sake of the improvement of their prosperity, people should have something to go back to and grow. That has enabled immense power of humanity to be harnessed and made things possible. Denial of that would violate mutual trusts and interests we have for each other, plus our reward based motivation to work and solve problems. 

Reward is stronger than punishment, I have the researcher app, so its there, and you can google search it and find a 2015 study in (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2765863/, July 2020) moreover, punishment would work only as far as the availability of the assets associated with the punishment. If you don't have personal ownership, you wouldn't have any assets. Even your network is a form of an asset. Well, communism tend to push your belonging to a group as an "alternative" to personal property, but it is a property because as soon as you can't rely on your network to behave a certain way for you, you would have none in it.

I just realized, network based assets should be easier to manipulate by a crazy government than some physical goods.

Ok so done with that lets jump to intellectual properties... actually this is also an artificial property, but since we have the internet we should be able to make use of it to reinforce our intellectual assets.
I propose "The Golden Sticker", so every-time there is a transaction between people, the receipt for both parties would be recorded in their profile pages. People then could assess a person whether or not they have made similar transactions with them or whether or not they have made some transactions with other people that they loved or admired. Of course people should be able to opt for hiding the stickers as well.

Now these receipts are stickers, you would have plenty of them, but this also motivates people to give back to the authors of the products they have enjoyed for free. So a motivation for royalties. Since other people would focus on those things more.

See, everyone deserve everything they want and need, everyone, but we should focus on what has been handed down to us through traditions and laws of what would work out the best, we need to be able to focus. And the recipe for such rewards are the idea of properties we are using now. And it has been working out well. But we could improve on this definitely by giving thanks to the people who are nice but under-rewarded. Of course those people are up to you to decide, some authors gave their products for free, some are for cheap, some are with decent costs but with crazy huge benefits they are still under-rewarded. It is all up to you, and that is the beautiful part, your appreciation matters... unlike communistic economy, your point of view matters in this capitalism.

So the golden sticker would enable people to scan another person's profile page for the things they appreciate, and if they found something admirable or lovable, even if they didn't know the person, it is now easier to be friends with them or make business transactions with them.

When you give thanks to your sources of solutions, or made transactions with others, both parties would give each other their stickers / their stamps like in Japanese anime, the amount or the magnitude of the stickers' rarity is self determined, people who are interested in an admirable author would learn about the values of his/her stickers and would know how rare/valuable it is when it appeared on somebody's golden sticker profile.

Using the golden sticker system, people should be able to connect with each other better, and solve each others' problems more. This is not a replacement for the current capitalism, this is an add-on. Even governments could use this system and increase their budget for the next year. Money is prove that one has helped and hasn't been helped back, as long as we made it official and conspicuous, we are in the light. 

Socialism? No v.02

Absolute profit is impossible, yes I still get by to that. It means that no matter how much you have solved other people's problems, you would never "deserve" more than what others "deserve" from you. This also considering inclinations as individuals.

This seemed to be contrary to my other proposed notion that "Everybody deserve everything", well it is actually not... because zero is not profit. But let me elaborate more on that:
The Idea of justice is that everybody deserve everything they want and need, but since we are limited in terms of solutions, justice is also improvements towards there. Why everybody deserve everything? One strong reason for that is that we are not born out of our own decision, we are dragged into existence not on our own will, therefore it is only fair that we should like it.

Ok, I have posts that have elaborated some of the issues with the idea in this blog, please check them out if you will but now lets explore further on why socialism is a no.

Since it is only just that we ought to sustainably increase the level of availability of mutual solutions for as many guys as possible, we should regulate ourselves to disregard our interest for the best of our "country" or "community" or "group"... right? absolutely NO, because the basis of justice is personal interests.

See we are consuming beings, that means that we are good. We will not be satisfied, we want more and more things and more... this is incredibly good, because we would have to take care of our world in order for us to be able to enjoy ourselves optimally forever. Also, it means that we are innately able to understand each other mutually, we are each others' nakama in this sekai.

But the problem is, who gets to decide what would increase the level of availability of mutual solutions the most? And in difficult cases, whose interests were to be sacrificed for the sake of other interests? It is not easy and it is not the same for different conditions, but for sure there can not be only one/few point of view/s that would prevail/s all the time.

The Truth is the protocol that everything follows, that there is only one singular past. This is beyond colossal level of synchronization, this is divine. Everything is Everything, you can't stick on one hierarchy all the time, there can never be enough point of views in the face of the Truth.

The Indonesians have so good articulation on how to start on facing this reality: Pancasila
1. Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa
(my personal translation: Singular Godness)
Everyone is in this together, everyone is in the same protocol, everyone should work together to fulfill our destiny, everyone is family.

2. Kemanusiaan yang adil dan beradab
(my personal translation: Humanity that is just and civilized)
We want to be orderly by the standard of human beings

3. Persatuan Indonesia
(my personal translation: Unity)
United Indonesia

4. Kerakyatan yang dipimpin oleh Hikmat Kebijaksanaan dalam permusyawaratan, perwakilan
(my personal translation: The Idea of "Country" that is lead by Wisdom in inclusive negotiations, through representations)
We want a country that is lead by Wisdom that is realistic and acknowledges the relevance of different point of views and the necessity of efficiency so the representation.

5. Keadilan sosial bagi seluruh rakyat Indonesia
(my personal translation: Social Justice for all Indonesians)
We want the people to be treated justly in their social life.
(This was at about 70 years ago when Pancasila was born, so this "Social Justice" is not like that painful "Social Justice" we are seeing now. Psst pssst: give people their chance for proper response).

So at the 4'th Sila you see that Wisdom is there for us to respect. You don't just decide for others that your way of doing it would always be right, or maybe not you but some elitists. Either way socialism is all about the bourgeoisie game, but it is played using poor people as their human shields. That is why communist countries always failed their economy, I mean that is one of the myriad reasons why, that is the arrogance of a few point of views wanting to stay in power all the time.

But why is my articulation of what is just different from socialism? Even though I proposed that there are no absolute profit, and just by existing people deserve everything... The difference is in the increase of level of availability of mutual solutions. I relatively don't underestimate as much the utility of personal aspirations to be realized, the difference of innate assets within people, and the relevance of different interests for the development of prosperity. In fact, I think that people are innately good if they are wise, because we are greedy, we all are.

There are a lot more relevant things, beautifully took play in this concept, but there are so much of them to manage... I'll resort to silence for now. 

Curb your entitlement to compassion

As I talked about in the previous post, most guys have innate tendencies to fight. And there are multiple benefits to this, some might not as obvious as the others.
It is intuitive for guys who have experienced many fights to identify "the lines". There are lines that if crossed would reasonably lead to conflict. How intense would the conflict be, also have levels of lines. If you just look at it from the outside, your subconscious wouldn't get the feel to it... you might be able to rationalize it to a certain degree, but know that your subconscious too could contribute to the understanding.

Such know and feel are pretty common among guys, but it doesn't mean that it is a privilege that should not be applied to everybody. It should because it is real and archetypal. Let's say your kids often create a ruckus messing with other kids' toys and being physically annoying. It is so obvious to guys that there is no tolerance for causing problems for other people. You are responsible for every single damage that you've done, no matter how old you are. This rule is not made up, not decided recklessly or mindlessly by men, it emerged as consequences of myriad numbers of repeated conflicts throughout history... and intuitively identifiable from the atmospheres by those who have been exposed to samples of natural conflicts. Physical conflicts and the patterns that would lead to those, the lines, the natural escalations of stakes, these are the things whose understanding of them is deeply ingrained inside people's subconscious.

The objections males like me often face when dealing with women is that they seem to not want to abide by this intuition. The costs of peace, the danger one should respect, the consequences of challenging one's right/property... I know that violence or attacks against assets are not to be brought in a civilized society, in order to ensure the serenity of it, but you should not take it for granted and nurture unfairness. We don't make the rules, it's only logical and natural, it's derived from what is just and what would produce the most peace and serenity. One way you can use to unlock your senses of  "the lines" are, getting into simulations of regulated conflicts, through games, sparring, negotiations, involving different levels of stakes. Pay attention to the rules of the game and avoid vagueness in the standard as much as possible. Try your best to articulate the experience boldly.

Its time to not use compassion as an excuse to regress into unfairness, the type of unfairness that has been recognized by tradition. Its time to look up to the wisdom of Isaac Newton, standing in the shoulders of giants, and use the wisdom of the masculines to further your prosperity and independence. I suggest Dr. Jordan B Peterson's "Twelve Rules For Life, An Antidote to Chaos" for references in understanding the utility behind the culture of conflicts. 

Responding to the guardian's article: Should gamers be accountable for in-game war crimes

Google searched it in July 2020: https://www.google.com/search?q=the+guardian+crime+in+video+games&rlz=1C1CHBF_idID854ID854&oq=the+guardian+crime+in+video+games&aqs=chrome..69i57j33.7267j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I saw this article and asked myself, can this issue be answered using the point of view of inclinations?
Well if I used the point of view of inclinations then the answer would be in agreement with it. The crimes committed in video games are bad/unethical and the characters in the video games are actually living beings since they are self-preserving, and very alive since they use means of self-communication to self-preserve.

Realizing this I say, damn... this is not good. Because I know it in my heart that the thing is ok, it is not a crime, it is the opposite of a crime, it is good information, a simulation.

Now, what makes us feel that it is fine to simulate?
What constitutes reality vs simulations?
Are the characters in video games that are self-preserving really alive?

Some of it is like vaccines, the reason why killing and hurting characters in-game is good is that the act itself is like vaccines. We guys have this evolutionary tendency to fight battles, obviously, that's how our ancestors survive. Males that are good at fighting would preserve its gene and those that are not good at fighting would not pass. So we have it deeply ingrained in our psyche.

The role of video games is to channel those tendencies in a healthy way instead of it being channeled in real life. The more intricate a video game is, the more it resembles the complexities of the reality, the better it is, the more it is captivating, and the more it would attract players. Or maybe niche, if it could represent things that are real but currently hard to find in other video games.

Ok so, what is the problem with that? Now we know that it is good for us because the prevalent relevance for it. Without it, a). People might look to channel their tendencies in real life, b). People wouldn't have an idea on limits in real life, people wouldn't have other means to train and simulate and would be less prepared.

The same with sex, due to its prevalent drive in human beings and that we don't have the technology to dim the urge yet, in a healthy way, we should explore it in a "sandbox" whether it is our own imagination or something else that would have little to no consequences to our real life.

So I'm saying that video games are good, but here is where the point of view of inclinations is right. If the world is able to do away with the urges, do away with violence, do away with crime, without any need of any simulations anymore. And such technology would reliably nullify crimes and violence from ever happening again in the future, and such technology relies not on simulations... then the only source of risk of crime and violence were from the video games... then now the video games are not ok. When I say the world, I mean the universe, including the distant galaxies.

So is killing in video games is bad? Well, what about killing plants and animals?. We know that plants are living beings... it could count and communicate: (https://youtu.be/pvBlSFVmoaw, accessed in July 2020).
Video game characters are like that too, more than plants in an aspect that some of them seemed to "negotiate" and beg for their lives. It is the same as if you're a novelist and you wrote an event where innocent people are being massacred, people who could communicate, and truly wanted to stay alive. Should you be deemed a criminal then?

Further reasons why doing that is really not bad is:
1. The form of life of the characters is lacking in terms of memory updating. They don't update their memories out of interactions with the truth. Or maybe some of them do but very abysmal in a sense.
2. When you reset the game, the characters are back. Their memories would not be lost if you killed them over and over and over again in the video games.

But you know what, this is a highly complex issue for me because exploring a lot of deep things are relevant... such as why certain kind of crimes are frowned upon even in video games such as rape and pedophilia while killing and stealing is not (this would relate to the issue of the emergence of the human rights and property laws). It intersect also with the issue of what constitutes reality vs simulations. It intersects also with the issue of death, if one is able to store its memory somewhere else, would killing its biological body would still be murder? And as we are exploring those, likely some other relevant issues would pop up. But so far I have something to say in answer to all of the above. But I'll not talk about it in detail here.

The stance is still the same, the current state of video games are positive, don't regulate it out of the wrong compassion. If you want to introduce the international laws in regards to war, then please suggest so to be included in future games, but there is nothing wrong with the current gaming meta that significantly is in need to be banned. Also, the regulation proposed would be counterproductive to the good that is being enjoyed out of the solutions of life that is the video games.