Is a child an investment for the community? The community usually markets children as investments, but treats them is liabilities.
Is your child a liability to you? You would never view it like this... would you? [biology.shapes our view.behavior] Is it like buying a house? When you buy a house you view it as an investment, but the community sees it as you taking on the liability of ownership. [at least our communities]
Bringing a child into the world is not the same as creating a home, which is different that building a house and buying a house is even further removed. Still, something in me keeps saying, "same same but different". Ever where I look there are limited liability corporation and not many fully liable .com.org.gov.edu corporations. Absolutely no fully liable communities. What is the point of creating communities with limit liabilities?
It ebb and flows, the binary nature of corporations.religion.gov.com.mil.org. They try to instill this idea of being responsible for each other [liability], but then sets up routine.rituals that make sure the corporations that push the brand are not liable themselves.
Corporal beings are liable nonetheless. And when trust is lost, the One community dissolves the corporation, sometimes violently, leaving individuals or fragmented corporations to recreate a new brand and a new corporation. Perhaps a complex corporations [higher ordered structures] but always in One community.
In the ancient model, you were born into a family.extended.community. That family.extended.community takes on the liability of that new person.
In the newer model, a new person is born into an immediate family and various corporations: .com.org.edu.gov.mil.de. The new person's liability is broken up for corporal entities to more safely take on a limited liability for that new person. The liability [risk?] of that person has been broken up and packaged into discrete vehicles and sold to each corporation. The community accepts this because supposedly it provides efficiency. Our community through no ignorance individuals nor malice of corporations have created rules & rituals to maximize the longevity of corporations by limiting the liability it has to the individuals. Isn't the newer model a lot like the old model? Perhaps we need a complete different model?
There is an effect called Money Priming.
http://nymag.com/news/features/money-brain-2012-7/index3.html
Money priming results in a plastic community (pun intended). It is necessary but not sufficient for a community. A Brand holds the community together and provides rigidity. It is also necessary but not sufficient for a healthy community.
I see a weird dynamic pulling between money.individual versus brand.group.
In times of fear, the brand pulls the members of a corporation tigher together. Yet when primed with money, members are less suspectible to being pulled into a brand. That is OK as long as they know that there is only One community.
What am I talking about? I don't know. I can only give you a narrative to my thoughts. You could go directly to my thoughtStream! It is be even more raw with fragments and loose associations. Still, maybe an interaction with another raw stream might induce the correct interferance patterns with nodes of clarity and troughs of hidden ignorance.
Is your child a liability to you? You would never view it like this... would you? [biology.shapes our view.behavior] Is it like buying a house? When you buy a house you view it as an investment, but the community sees it as you taking on the liability of ownership. [at least our communities]
Bringing a child into the world is not the same as creating a home, which is different that building a house and buying a house is even further removed. Still, something in me keeps saying, "same same but different". Ever where I look there are limited liability corporation and not many fully liable .com.org.gov.edu corporations. Absolutely no fully liable communities. What is the point of creating communities with limit liabilities?
It ebb and flows, the binary nature of corporations.religion.gov.com.mil.org. They try to instill this idea of being responsible for each other [liability], but then sets up routine.rituals that make sure the corporations that push the brand are not liable themselves.
Corporal beings are liable nonetheless. And when trust is lost, the One community dissolves the corporation, sometimes violently, leaving individuals or fragmented corporations to recreate a new brand and a new corporation. Perhaps a complex corporations [higher ordered structures] but always in One community.
In the ancient model, you were born into a family.extended.community. That family.extended.community takes on the liability of that new person.
In the newer model, a new person is born into an immediate family and various corporations: .com.org.edu.gov.mil.de. The new person's liability is broken up for corporal entities to more safely take on a limited liability for that new person. The liability [risk?] of that person has been broken up and packaged into discrete vehicles and sold to each corporation. The community accepts this because supposedly it provides efficiency. Our community through no ignorance individuals nor malice of corporations have created rules & rituals to maximize the longevity of corporations by limiting the liability it has to the individuals. Isn't the newer model a lot like the old model? Perhaps we need a complete different model?
There is an effect called Money Priming.
http://nymag.com/news/features/money-brain-2012-7/index3.html
Money priming results in a plastic community (pun intended). It is necessary but not sufficient for a community. A Brand holds the community together and provides rigidity. It is also necessary but not sufficient for a healthy community.
I see a weird dynamic pulling between money.individual versus brand.group.
In times of fear, the brand pulls the members of a corporation tigher together. Yet when primed with money, members are less suspectible to being pulled into a brand. That is OK as long as they know that there is only One community.
What am I talking about? I don't know. I can only give you a narrative to my thoughts. You could go directly to my thoughtStream! It is be even more raw with fragments and loose associations. Still, maybe an interaction with another raw stream might induce the correct interferance patterns with nodes of clarity and troughs of hidden ignorance.
No comments:
Post a Comment