There is so much resistance to the idea of human cooperation, volunteerism, or altruism.
The insistence that greed is the only effective human motivator is a cultural plague.
Discussion
One time a buddy of my dad’s had cancer, couldn’t work and needed money. He sold my dad a pistol for 300 bucks. My dad’s more of a revolver guy so he sold it to me for 300 bucks. Fast forward 4-5 years the guy is back on his feet and wants his pistol back so I sold it to my dad for 300 and he sold it back to his buddy for 300. Then I went out and bought one just like it for 400.
I think that works in places where you know the people involved or at best if you don’t know them you know their cousin. There’s other things involved. If you go to someone who doesn’t know you from Adam they don’t have that personal connection so that’s a non starter because they’ll always have something else to do with their resources if the possibility of profit doesn’t exist.
My pet idea is that the Libertarian Party and its dues paying members would have been better off starting their own bank and credit processing system than wasting the money in politics. The response is typically I would be interested in that if was profitable. Why would profits come into it? You aren’t receiving a return on your investment in the libertarian party. So you’ll waste money on politics but because it’s a business you suddenly have to make money instead of just breaking even or even never seeing that money again but now there’s a system in place that does more for your ability to do business without the government shutting you down with a simple email to your bank instead of taking your bank to court, than 70 years or 700 years of playing politics was ever going to get you.
Yeah, the preoccupation with profits is actually dragging down the ability to disengage with the state, as only the state and state-friendly banks/corps can guarantee profits.
Bitcoin is making that even more obvious. Trying to make investing with Bitcoin about profits always leads to stablecoins, altcoins, gambling, etc.
And there is nothing stopping my casino bank from continuing to bear interest on my deposits... as long as they feel like it instead of rug pulling.
People are off complaining in a different thread about how religious people are insane because they spend money on things that aren't profitable for metaphysical reasons like karma or the good state of the soul, wanting to do good, etc., but maybe having non-profit motivations is actually an economic superpower for a group.
Maybe that's why there are so many religious people. 🤷♀️ We help each other and pay for stuff, even if we don't get paid back in money.
Psychic profits are still profits. When someone donates $5 to a homeless person, it's not because they expect a monetary profit; it's because the psychic/emotional profit they get (helping someone else) is worth at least $5 to them.
What I've never understood about non-fanatic religious people is why they don't go 100% in. On one side of the balance, you have eternity. On the other, some integers. Infinity is always going to beat some integers. I understand the suicidal jihadist way more than I do the Sunday church-goer who puts $5 in a basket. Why not $500? Why not 5 million? Why aren't you living as a missionary in a tent, giving up all earthly possessions to maximize returns times infinity?
lenders make a margin, in all cases, the difference is that the rate is fixed into the contract until it is exited
that is also a big misunderstanding about kosher and halal finance, it's almost insane that people wouldn't even realise that a lender has to make a profit!
You're allowed to calculate the return using percentages, but that doesn't make it interest/riba. Halal loans are collateral-backed and you pay them a fee for the time they hold your collateral.
So you sell them a house worth €100k and they give you €120k and you have to pay them 10% more to get it back, so €132k. They hold the title for the duration of the loan, with you retaining a right to repurchase. That is not interest (money charged for a rate for the time you hold it).
What he was describing was clearly interest.
1) Someone wants to build something that costs 100 BTC to build.
2) He asks someone with 100 BTC to borrow the money.
3) They give him the money and he promises to return the entire 100 BTC and add 1% on top.
4) He spends X years building.
5) He finishes, gets 101 BTC and returns it.
6) Lender pockets 1% profit.
My point was:
Where does the 101 Bitcoin come from, that he pays back?
How hard is it to scrape together 101 Bitcoin after X years (when the purchasing power has increased), while building something?
Under fiat, he simply takes out a different loan to repay the 101 Bitcoin and then he just keeps rolling that debt over into longer and longer-dated loans and other financial magic. Or he has a huge stock sale to astronomic prices. Or etc.
I still think deflation could stabilize enough to allow profitable loans again, maybe in our lifetimes, but halal loans sound more compatible in general with a world where there's a deflationary currency
Because it's based upon a gold standard, where inflation hardly ever goes over 3%, so you can make good money just charging a fee. The longer the loan span, the higher the fee. And if they can't pay up, you just keep the collateral.
That doesn't work for building something like a cathedral, unless you have some similarly-valuable asset, like a second cathedral or a full gold vault.
there has never been and never will be a deflationary currency until bitcoin stops emitting new tokens
just should point that out... the supply of gold increases and has increased at 1-3% for all of recorded history by estimation, based on the sales of new gold from miners
i'm a tail emissions guy, so, my pet theory is that when the current precision of bitcoin is untenable it will be upgraded and emissions will continue at the same rate, most likely, just that previously there was nothing smaller than 1 sat... there is already millisats in LN protocol and as Mises points out, a fixed currency base does not preclude price calculation, in fact it makes it easier
Bitcoin is definitely deflationary. Coins are lost faster than new ones are made, the total supply therefore decreases.
Because it is consistent & generally less dangerous than misguided groupies...
The last couple of centuries of humans "cooperating" hasn't been a fantastic outcome. 😂
You can’t get good output with bad input and most people have chosen to use a system of bad inputs because they think it’s a better system.
If you exceed Dunbar's number, the sociopaths will rule every time...
There was a hierarchy of loyalties for a reason, exceed natural group numbers without it & it will go to shit.
Eh. I think you could make it work in excess of that number as long as your still at a point of I don’t know you but I do know 3 of your cousins. I think the biggest problem is people thinking it’s ok to forcibly take resources from others for their own safety. Paying the police and military and so forth. It might be necessary but no one wants to be the bad guy so they contort themselves mentally to come up with a way that they aren’t a thief and if anyone was killed resisting a murderer. Worse yet if they weren’t a trigger puller for the government or an elected official but just a voter they’re a coward who contracts their dirty work out by means of secret ballot on top of being a thief and murderer.
And yes. If you believe taxes are theft this is the only way to look at your neighbors who don’t or the ones who think it is but decide we have to do it anyway. Even if you shouldn’t say it because those people are the bulk of your society. Does it make them a bad person? Are you a bad person if you survive a plane crash, have no survival skills and break into a remote hunting cabin for shelter and food? Does it change if the cabin is occupied and the owner doesn’t want you there or to share his food so you get into a fight and kill him? How is that any different at scale when it’s a large collection of individuals doing it through the government?
Only if you give them a hierarchy to commandeer. Lone sociopaths are pretty harmless. Especially when they're up against a high tech Ancapistan with 30' walls, laser defenses and drone swarms.
It just seems to lead to the greedy capturing power and the monetary system and turning it to their own desires, usually by indebting the rest of the population.
The only miracle they believe in is compound interest.
And collectivism did even worse.
I haven't been suggesting collectivism. I'm suggesting that it's sometimes necessary to accept returns on equity or loans at or below costs because some things are valuable, but don't produce high enough returns to throw out a profit.
And that's fine & everyone is free to do so, who is arguing against it?
Nobody. The debate was whether Bitcoin's purchasing power increases don't lead inevitably to most longer-term learns falling into this category because hardly anything can beat Bitcoin over a 5+ year span of time.
I don't expect this to stop, after Bitcoinization.
I don’t think people are arguing against it per se. I think a lot of people want something that can only be achieved that way at least anytime soon, aren’t willing to contribute if they aren’t going to make money and then wonder why they don’t have the thing. Like a bank or credit processing system that doesn’t report gun purchases to the government. You probably need a bank owned by shareholders that specifically opposed to policies like that and the only way to get that is probably for those people to get together in the millions and chip in 50 bucks a piece and then lock in ownership. Not have it be a publicly traded company and you probably won’t get funding from the feds or the fed. So yeah. Making money? Probably not happening anytime soon. It did a better job of achieving your ends than spending the same money in politics would have though. And how many of those people donated more than 20 bucks a piece to political pro gun organizations to do that, to no effect.
Want a bank that will loan money to buy non traditionally shaped houses or look at the value of the soil on two different farms and charge based on that instead of just the value of the house and the amount of land? Same thing.
You can do this by collaterallizing a loan and lending them an amount significantly above the market-price of the collateral, or accepting such low rates on the return of the collateral that you have more costs in holding the item than you make on the lending.
You are abusing/misusing the word "valuable". If something doesn't bring profits, it isn't valuable to others. People will trade for goods and services that bring greater value to their lives than the amount they're trading. If the thing you are putting out there is not instigating this kind of response, it doesn't matter if you slap the arbitrary label "valuable" on it. It's not valuable if nobody else voluntarily trades for it.
Declaring something "valuable to others" by fiat is exactly what underpins collectivism.
I didn't do that. Okay, you're muted, you asshole.
pleased to say that he quit trying to do the rhetoric on me tho, so i wonder what the difference is
You don't sound as religious.
He sounds more religious most of the time. I knew him to be religious. It doesn't bother me. About either of you.
I should have just muted him hours ago and saved myself the grief, geez.
well, he kept sawing away at the flaws in your understanding, i'm sure you learned something from it
I thought it was a valuable conversation. It was for me at least. Maybe she doesn't like her understanding questioned in public? What's the point of publishing notes then?
"Caveat: agreeable replies only"
lol, you were learning?
seemed more like you were trying to punch a hole in her reputation because of her tendency to type the first thing that comes to her mind
i agree that her understanding is weak in some areas and i also understand the process by which she learns through argumentation, mainly because i do a lot of this myself, but i am also very good at inference, many things i figure out even though i never actually read a strict definition of something, i just saw it used so many times in a context that i cemented my understanding based on this and it has been right like 7 times out of 10, in most cases, thus my brazen confidence at typing words
To some degree you're right. She writes a lot of long and confident pieces (that don't come off as stream of consciousness experiments) and posts them to the public for consideration. One form of reply you'll get when you do that is people saying "I don't think you're right about that, and here's why."
Muting them and calling them assholes is an interesting style of replying to feedback on your content.
I didn't drop a single snarky, rude comment and disappear. I had several long threads with her where we strongly disagreed and I hoped would eventually come to some kind of understanding at least of each other if not the world.
I suppose that happened? She's left with an understanding that I'm some sort of sociopath. And I'm left with an understanding that she's deeply uncomfortable with long-winded disagreements. Uncomfortable enough that _she doesn't even want to see it in her client_...
no, and i agree with her that you focused on the religion part and ignored the philosophical basis of her point about psychic profit because she isn't as schooled in economic theory and relies on things she does know that are the religious basis
it's fine if you don't want to believe in God or ultimate justice of any kind but you also can't deny that a society that organises around these principles is a better society... the whole reason why europe has come to dominate the world in the last 500 years has not just been guns, it's also because a more just system of money and contracts, which are central principles of christianity, were in effect, from the chiming of the church clock bells to the mediation of disputes performed by the priests of a parish, christianity has been critical to how the world has got a lot better in the last 500 years, and further, Satoshi even gave a nod to that by picking the same day to finally go to public with his early alpha bitcoin project, to make a clear connection to Luther and the end of the catholic monopoly on christianity, and their prohibition of distribution of the bible
and yes, she is a very intelligent lady, and very confident about her intelligence, and performs well at carrying that
i also write a lot off the top of my head, so much so that i get accused occasionally of being an AI (even though i post photos of my ortholinear mech keyboard) - back in the old days people would say "you're on meth" and occasionally that was true
people with high intelligence and low impulse control have a lot of audacity at argumentation, even when they have got something wrong, and attacking that as a personality flaw does not endear you to them, nor does it achieve the ostensible goal of correcting their inaccurate models
and i'm definitely of the opinion that atheism is a wrong model, this universe has rigid laws and you have to at minimum agree that the entire edifice of science rests upon the foundation of this fixity of the laws, even if maybe some of the apparent constants fluctuate the laws that they regulate do not
Well she sure carries herself as if she's some sort of nostr celebrity. Especially the "doesn't take criticism well / quick to mute" aspect.
At no point did I attack her personality. The closest I came to something resembling an insult was to say I don't understand moderate religious people, and that I understand fanatics better.
And that was in the context of psychic profits. Namely: if there is an endless wealth of psychic profit available to the believer, and those profits are unbelievably strong (both immediately and literally forever after) why does one ever defer on maximizing those profits?
I know you think atheism is a wrong model. That's fine.
it's not your privilege to get the engagement of everyone you wish to engage with
if you start along this line of "harden up, ignore the trolls" mentality that i know well from reddit and steem blockchain and many shitcoin comunities, you are on track to also lose my interest in engaging with you
Harden up, yes. But also be wise enough to discern between "the trolls" and "people who just don't agree with you". If someone wants to review the conversation from this morning and find the places where I was trolling or being needlessly rude and antagonistic, they can be my guest - there's no delete nor edit on nostr. There's not a whole lot I would have said differently. Maybe if I knew how sensitive she is I would have couched a few things a bit more, but that gets exhausting after a while.
Easier for everyone for her to just mute me I guess? Let's hope I never have anything of value she'd prefer to see. "Mute" is a pretty strong action - saying that there's nothing you could possibly want to see from this account.
Not sure what you're talking about re: shitcoin communities.
Smart women b crazy
It's quite the claim that Satoshi's nod was at Christianity itself and not actually the process by which the church's ideological stranglehold was dismantled and potentially a celebration of the decline of the church... but we'll both just be guessing here so let's not.
---
I focused on the religion part because I had a strong suspicion that her points about economics were backed not by economics but by religion. I feel that she mostly confirmed this, but we'll never really know since I guess I scared her off by going there.
If I'm going to get into a conversation with someone and some large portion of their opinions on all topics are undergirded by a metaphysics I don't subscribe to, I sort of want to know that early on because in my experience it's hard for religious people to set their beliefs aside and meet me on neutral grounds about the topic at hand.
Faith tends to be totalizing - and it's understandable that it is, that's kind of the point. It's not meant to be this little sliver of a thing [over here] that sometimes has an effect; it runs through a person's core.
So I prefer to find the places we're going to "agree to disagree" early and just get that out of the way and see what else (if anything) is left to discuss that isn't poisoned by either of our convictions about metaphysics (here I am including my own convictions - I totally get that religious people will think I'm quite wrong).
In this case, it seems there was "nothing left to discuss" after the religious part was out of the way - since we couldn't even get past the religious part without her blocking me.
well i'm just gonna leave it there also because i don't like the way it feels thinking of the universe as a heartless, dumb machine, because what is the value of my life in such a context? nothing, or at best, an ever shrinking miniscule triviality
i believe that there is a force in nature that accumulates coherence and order and continues an unending trajectory towards goodness and justice, terence mckenna called it a "novelty conserving engine" but i think it is no less an abstract thing that governs all around us, and that this nihilistic, mechanistic, materialist perspective only leads to decay and death
if there is no eternal axiomatic laws in our universe, then the continued existence of it is a spite in the face of your so called philosophy
and i'm just not gonna let this thing go because otherwise i might as well be dead, and there is nothing in the future but eventual heat death and dissipation
what kind of model is that? one that does not bolster your will to do the right thing, that excuses evil and criminality and violence, you just haven't thought it through
The universe doesn't care whether or not you enjoy the feeling of how it is.
I get that that feels bad - you said it yourself. But I don't choose my beliefs by looking at a bunch of options and saying "which one will make me feel the best, regardless of its validity?"
_That_ is wild hedonism.
Sometimes you have to accept that the true nature of a situation is not as good as it could actually be or as you'd like or imagine it could be.
This is the post of someone who only thought about atheism for 5 minutes.
Meaning is so much more meaningful in a universe where you can truly meet the most meaningful being in existence in person and know that you did with certainty. Not having your meaning doesn't mean having no meaning.
The morality of atheism is well documented, if you think we are all just monsters giving in to our every sin impulse it is because you choose to see us that way. I would point out that only one of us feels full responsibility for our wrongdoing. After all nostr:npub19ma2w9dmk3kat0nt0k5dwuqzvmg3va9ezwup0zkakhpwv0vcwvcsg8axkl and I can't say the devil made me do it or god wanted me to make that mistake to learn some lesson. We must simply face the full force of that mistake with 100% of the responsibility in our hands.
Put those together, any harm I do to another human is a direct attack on "god" defined as the most amazing and powerful being to exist and I am fully to blame for any damage done.
i have extensive personal experience with atheists and satanists and every last one i have met has signs of mild to moderate psychosis
and the way that text is structured it smells like AI had a big part in composing it
and lol what the fuck, if you are an atheist, you also are inclined towards the solipsistic brain in a jar interpretation and how do you know anything happened at all? give me a break
Lol the people who don't believe in the supernatural are the ones with the psychosis...
Look, I mean it when I say that I don't hold your religion against you. I can't fully ignore that aspect of your worldview (because it potentially implies a lot), but I'm happy to keep having discussions with you about other topics. Hopefully the feeling is mutual. We can just say "well, we're veering into metaphysics now, probably best to avoid.." and we'll hope that isn't the fate of every conversation.
I'm willing to bet that psychosis comes from circular logic on your part or a refusal to understand that a different world view can be consistent and their actions make sense given their world view but not yours.
No AI used. Just a wordy person by nature. Too much reading old books.
Or a blood infection or too little sleep for too long.
nostr:npub19ma2w9dmk3kat0nt0k5dwuqzvmg3va9ezwup0zkakhpwv0vcwvcsg8axkl nostr:npub1qyxlpj2gl6dt2nfvkl4yyrl6pr2hjkycrdh2dr5r42n7ktwn7pdqrdmu7u
thanks for this. it's fun to read.
I had trouble describing my own beliefs (raised by atheists) in ways that weren't belief based, so I cointed the term "Apathet" to describe myself for religious classification.
I don't care if there's a god. I'm a good person anyway in case there's some moment/eternity of judgement awaiting me. Let some God figure it out, and I'll continue making conscious decisions in the present moment. what a relief.
the universe is way bigger than me, but it is me.. and I it. as are you, even if you're AI. and there's something valuable in connecting with the universe how my ancestors did. through symbols.
.. and it's nicer to consider the world (my limited perception) through a slightly mystical lens.
LOL I spent almost an entire afternoon debating you and didn't get upset until you claimed religion addled my brain and you be like,
She refuses to even respond!
🥴
as i was getting tired of reading it i realised that he was using all kinds of rhetorical and fallacious logic tricks to keep engagement going, i've bumped into this one before and i'll keep him on my mute list i think
Yea we've bumped into eachother before. We talked about Stray and other video games. It was fun.
Where did I say religion addled your brain?
"Addled" has a negative charge. Wouldn't you agree that someone with strong religious beliefs has different worldviews when it comes to all sorts of topics than those without any religious belief? (It wouldn't be much of a belief if it didn't change your mind, right?)
You don't have to use the derogatory term "addled". I am indeed curious where your worldview and mine diverge, and when that divergence stems from our differing metaphysical beliefs. That's not an insulting or trolly disposition is it?
For instance, I asked what you consider the term "greed" to mean, elsewhere in the threads. I'd wager we have different ideas there due to our belief systems. There was nothing rude or baiting or inciteful about that question.
Of course it's your prerogative if you choose to answer or simply ignore the question. But calling me an asshole, muting me and then chalking it all up to "me thinking you're insane because you believe in god" is quite the different tack than merely choosing not to answer...
We are talking about flowers, now.
> She refuses to even respond!
I mean... yes - demonstrably.
I'd rather you keep me muted than make a show of pretending to respond to old messages with joking nonsequitirs about flowers.
If this is one of those "let's just change the topic and re-start on friendly terms as if nothing happened" things, I'm not doing it. You called me an asshole, said you were muting me, claimed I called you insane/brain damaged, constructed false realities about me in other threads (https://primal.net/e/note1lmcehrh9rh5tj65g8uyau0s2z6dx3w8elgm7h7kvyaz3xav5gw2q3xm7sw), etc.
I'm not smiling and walking into "new topic" land like that without a discussion, sorry.
I learned that he thinks I'm a crazy idiot, that he doesn't read what I actually write, that he is motivated solely by monetary profit, and that He thinks anything else is a mental illness.
there is also the pigeon chess strutting part too
Well at least she learned some stuff.
Although not as much as she thinks. I read what she wrote and I'm not solely motivated by monetary profit, nor do I think other forms of profit or incentives are mental illness.
I give money to homeless people and not because I'm insane.
You didn't say insane things like "some things don't return a profit, but are still valuable". You were way more reasonable in the lending/interest discussion and brought up the good points about halal loans.
Maybe she meant "solely financial profit" and I misunderstood her, which I'm open to learning. She could clarify if she hadn't muted me, but here we are.
if you would put aside some time to read some good treatises on economics, the most seminal one being Ludwig von Mises magnum opus Human Action you would understand that profit is not only about monetary gain it is also about anything that is perceived as a gain to the profitee... so a philanthropist sees a gain from seeing people pull themselves out of a mess by their help, and yet they net lose money
Thanks for the suggestions.
I understand that:
I've read a lot of Mises, including chunks of Human Action and many books derived from Mises's work by other authors.
that's what she was talking about, you just saw the christian part and ignored the charity part
What do you mean by "greed"?
My hypothesis is that that term doesn't mean what you think it means in a truly free market. Or more directly: it doesn't exist.
Any profit you are able to generate in a free market is the result of providing value to someone else. If I take two $5 resources and combine them, via some process of effort and invention of my own, into a good that I sell for $15, then the person who bought that good freely decided that whatever new property I imbued into the $10 raw goods was worth at least $5 to him. It improved his life at least "five dollar's worth". He would trade five dollars worth of his own claims on resources to me. He wants this thing _today_ more than five dollars worth of other competing things in the future.
More simply: Profits earned without aggression or State favoritism represent value added to society.
So I've made $5. As money, that represents a claim on resources. One that was legitimately passed to me from the prior holder. I may choose to turn that $5 in for consumable today (maybe I buy cabbage from a farmer), or to hold it and defer my consumption until later.
Where does "greed" factor in? Say I sell **A LOT** of $15 goods, and **MANY** people buy them, each of whom determines that my product improves their life. As the transactions are voluntary, my success can only mean I am on net adding value to society.
Is that greed? Is too much success, adding too much value to society, greed?
Is saving for too long - deferring my consumption - greed?
_WHAT_ is "greed"? Surely you don't mean "creating and or selling goods and services through a free market whereby those whose lives are improved by trading with you enrich you accordingly"? That's "acting in one's own interest" but one's own interest can only be improved by creating value for others. Where does "greed" hide in this definition?
I'll bite but I bet it won't hit the same as if she continued the discussion with you
You're basically relying on the assumption trickery doesn't exist to justify the idea greed doesn't exist, as far as I can tell?
I used to be a delivery driver. People paid for the food I delivered, including the cost to pay me as an employee delivering it, plus tipped me. Meanwhile, I was polluting the environment with an entire car just to move food around safely because other people with entire cars wouldn't let something like a motorcycle be safe. I trust the food I delivered was of decent quality by this shitty era's standards, but via pollution, my job was to kill my customers and everyone they love while relying on them not knowing I'm doing that so they not only pay me, but tip me as well. I didn't tell every customer "you really shouldn't tip me, I'm taking away your food in the long run, it's a tragedy that you couldn't cook for yourself." I don't expect delivery drivers to tell me that every time they deliver to me either. And I also tip them worthless dollars hoping it will help them survive. Doesn't mean I think they're good people or adding anything to society. They're random people who may or may not be good but are currently unable to find a way to survive without being part of the military industrial complex's petrodollar economy.
Dollars are worthless pieces of paper anyway, maybe in an economy based on something valuable it would be more likely for the economic exchanges to reflect value and people would be better at accurately assessing value instead of clinging to delusions.
I'm sure you're more open to learning than laeserin realizes. I think she sees you have disingenuous thoughts and she assumes you're always willing to argue disingenuously but I notice you might actually be trying to get out of the habit. If you respectfully keep suggesting you'd like to try talking to her my gut feeling is she's the type to try again
I really enjoy this delivery driver anecdote!
I'm sorry to say, though, that I fail to see how it connects to what "greed" might mean...
I liked where you were going with the "trickery" angle. When I first read that, it made me think about how there's a spectrum of trickery that goes from "fair and expected in bargaining" (like hiding information. i.e. the highest price you'll pay) to "basically theft" (like passing off a forgery as legit).
So in the most extreme cases, trickery is theft. Where is the "greed" bit though? Is greed just the tendency to try and deceive people in order to get more out of them than they'd otherwise voluntarily trade if not for having been deceived by you?
I feel like colloquially, "greed" has tended to mean "wants to get a lot for himself and not share with others". Which is a pretty questionable definition in the context of a free market...
I think the concept of greed has religious roots where it's a struggle to recognize sufficiency and be satisfied by it. Baked into all humans, an urge to have more than whatever we have at a given time, which mixes with one other flaw, our ability to lie to ourselves, and the result is we can have a hard time appreciating what we have.
Of all the ideas from religion, this one's seemed the most well-established and proven in real world observation from my anecdotal experience. It seems as though if there is a conscious creator of the universe, they've balanced this to be challenging for us and imbued magical meaning into the challenge.
Is it a flaw to desire more than we have at a given time? That sounds to me like "savings" in an effort to guard against future uncertainty.
I think you're right though that greed has religious roots. That hypothesis also dovetails with what I'm saying: If you properly trust in and have faith in your god, you wouldn't stack more than you need in the moment. Since god will act as insurance against uncertainty, you don't need to save overmuch.
The "greedy" are those with the least faith.
Well yea, count me among that lot, lol :D
You ever seen Fullmetal Alchemist Brotherhood? It posits that greed has an alternate form where instead of mixing with the ability to lie to oneself it mixes with the ability to be honest and true to oneself and it suddenly has the potential to be virtuous. It's lit 🔥
Never heard of it! I'll try to check it out, but fair warning: I've bounced off of every anime I've ever come across. I just can't get into the medium
If it fails to introduce itself to you, try jumping ahead to when the Greed character is introduced, the writers put more thought and research into the topic than we ever will in our nostr thread
Oh shit, also important and I forgot to mention, don't confuse it with Fullmetal Alchemist without the Brotherhood part. Brotherhood was made after because the original adaptation was a huge disappointment to people
> If you respectfully keep suggesting you'd like to try talking to her my gut feeling is she's the type to try again
At this point, it seems incumbent upon her to convince me that she's a worthy conversation partner.
Someone who engages for hours in discussions only to suddenly snap out of nowhere and mute me / call me an assshole. I was truly caught off guard. It was clear to me that we were pretty far apart and not understanding each other well yet, but I didn't realize it had come to that.
Talking with people who react that way is at best disappointing and at worst a waste of time that tends to have the side-effect of adding an unjustified "stink" to oneself in the eyes of onlookers. (I'm now "another one of those guys laeserin had to mute". cool.)
If she takes you off mute, it probably wouldn't be to keep insulting you. You low key know she's a worthy conversationalist 👀
I'm actually not sure her and I are a good conversation match. My conclusion at this point is that we're so far apart on metaphysics, and her worldview is so colored by her metaphysics, that we can barely talk about anything.
I said as much here:
note1xmqaq50w8jv4h3fqs677nredajrxn573l0sd05prh0vhczt98z3saxytzn
https://primal.net/e/note1xmqaq50w8jv4h3fqs677nredajrxn573l0sd05prh0vhczt98z3saxytzn