I believe that I have finally reached a basis that I can understand the origins of Conservative and Republican willingness to relegate the poor to even deeper poverty or worse in for instance the present political and ideological impasse in Congress. I think it is an unconscious strain of Calvinism which runs through much of American life and so many Protestant religions here in America. John Calvin was French in origin and this same strain runs through European culture and religion. Even if conservatives no longer feel themselves to be religious and perhaps more involved in the forms of religion than the fact, this Calvinism and the so called Protestant Work Ethic was engrained in their consciousness as a child by way of their early religious training. John Calvin was not the originator or leader of this system of thinking but his name has come to be associated with it. I will leave it to the interested to search out further information on Calvinism which is readily available on the Internet.

Bette introduced an article by the UC Berkeley professor of linguistics John Lakoff. John Lakoff has a concept of 'framing' which I understand from his article means that one puts ones self or ones actions and motives into a frame of reference by creating a picture with a border, the frame, which clarifies what one is about, what is significant to you. I will give you his proposed frames for the Occupy movement and the conservative Republicans in appropriate blue and red colors, followed by what Calvinism has to say in ecclesiastical purple.

OWS is a moral and patriotic movement. It sees Democracy as flowing from citizens caring about one another as well as themselves, and acting with both personal and social responsibility. Democratic governance is about The Public, and the liberty that The Public provides for a thriving Private Sphere. >From such a democracy flows fairness, which is incompatible with a hugely disproportionate distribution of wealth. And from the sense of care implicit in such a democracy flows a commitment to the preservation of nature.

From what I have seen of most members of OWS, your individual concerns all flow from one moral focus.

Conservatives have figured out their moral basis and you see it on Wall Street: It includes: The primacy of self-interest. Individual responsibility, but not social responsibility. Hierarchical authority based on wealth or other forms of power. A moral hierarchy of who is “deserving,” defined by success. And the highest principle is the primacy of this moral system itself, which goes beyond Wall Street and the economy to other arenas: family life, social life, religion, foreign policy, and especially government. Conservative “democracy” is seen as a system of governance and elections that fits this model.

Now compare the conservative viewpoint with something from Calvinism, which is a major stream of thought through many Protestant religions and is heavy on predestination, free will is a questionable thing, intolerance of other religions and specifically this as one of their 5 major concepts.

"Unconditional election": This doctrine asserts that God has chosen from eternity those whom he will bring to himself not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people; rather, it is unconditionally grounded in God's mercy alone. God has chosen from eternity to extend mercy to those He has chosen and to withhold mercy from those not chosen. Those chosen receive salvation through Christ alone. Those not chosen receive the just wrath that is warranted for their sins against God.

My concept and insight is that this thread of Calvinism, the source of the Protestant Work Ethic, takes the view that being successful and displaying the trappings of success arise from God's election of yourself as one of his chosen elect. This is the origin of so much conservative rejection of the poor, the disabled or the mentally challenged or disturbed as this is taken, perhaps unconsciously, as a sign that they are already rejected by God as sinners fore ordained to hell for their sins per Calvinism and their lack of 'success' is God's sure sign of this. They, the conservative Calvinists, however in their success and comfortable Republican gemütlichkeit take this as a sign from God of their certainty of being among the elect. There is no reason to do something for the 'poor' as sinners rejected from the beginning of time by God. The effort would be a waste since they are already doomed and they are obviously unworthy as not being among the elect. But usually one must work hard to obtain those signs of success which God bestows on the elect. They would not notice that they, in this work ethic driven by fear of rejection by God, are actually engaged in an attempt on their part to skew the matter in the other direction within their consciousness to justify feelings and the desire to be among the elect and receive this sign from God of being so elected. None of this process need be conscious. The sequestration of wealth by the ultra wealthy elect, even to the level of and resulting in the impoverishment of the vast majority of humanity as those rejected by God is fully justified by Calvinist religious feelings which tell the ultra wealthy that they have "obviously" been selected by God for all good things.

Ted

You "should" post this as a note on facebook or if you want me too I will do it for you Ted.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Fine with me, Bette. You clearly know much more about Facebook than I do. By the way, I was able to check and my comments about the origin of the 'Protestant Work Ethic' were accepted in Sociology texts of years back. They said nothing about the other aspects regarding conservative thought and justification for the 1% ruling over the 99%. It is almost like the old concept of the king having a divinely given right to rule. Back 20 or 30 years ago the idea of the huge wealth disparity was not really known at the time.

Ted

Isn't something like 97% of "money" virtual anyways? Non-secured debt is virtual money and there is a lot of that too which plays into this "wealth" issue. That number, by the way, that you had put at "around 1000" Ted of the top tier in "wealth" is being articulated as 400 now in the information going around. I'll post it on facebook and thanks for checking facts Ted.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

What criteria do you apply? If you go to the L curve web site, they talk about less than 800 billionaires in the US based upon Forbes data. If you look at the research done on interlocking international companies who 'own the earth' in a sense that I cited, they talk about less than 800 internationally. It is easier to talk about the 99% and the 1% than about the 99.99% and the .01%. Where should the precise cutoff be placed? It comes down to the fact that even a "millionaire" is poor on the scale that we are talking about and part of the 99%.

Ted

Yeah I am just saying it is being publicized more openly and the number has been whittled down a little from the 1000 you used as a safe number. It is 99.99% though I agree.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Ted, I consider myself more "conservative" than "liberal" on topics of economics and fiscal concerns (though I tend to be the opposite on social issues). I don't know anything about Calvinism, nor could I differentiate between a "Protestent" work ethic, and just a plain old work ethic, but one reason I have less sympathy for those in downtrodden financial circumstances is the fact that their actions, or lack thereof, in most (certainly not all) cases are what caused those circumstances.

I myself am not a college graduate. I am a very, very intelligent person, 99.9th percentile on standard IQ tests, and when I dropped out of college, my parents damn near convinced me I'd never amount to much, but through hard, smart work, I have been successful. Don't get me wrong, I'm nowhere near "rich", and in fact the preceding 24 months have been incredibly trying as I suffered a layoff, a short sale of my home, and a subsequent position with a company that blew chunks.

But I busted my hump, did what needed doing, and next Tuesday I start what I believe is going to be a long, prosperous career with an impressive firm that may have me in the land of the rich (at least by those defining rich as >$250k in annual earnings) within a couple of years.

Sorry, but many of those who struggle along, plodding from dead end job to dead end job (if that) are responsible for their lot in life. Again, not all, but many. If you have no desire to help yourself, you'll get no sympathy or help from me.

Sorry.

There are many things that could be said. One of them is that those who know nothing of history are doomed to repeat that history. The Calvinist work ethic is the Protestant work ethic is 'the' work ethic. I'm not talking about doing what has to be done to survive. Actually everyone does that if they are at all able. I'm talking about doing things at a level beyond that. Unless you had no background in either a Protestant or Jewish (yes, they also have an over achieving work ethic) background as a child, I find it hard to believe that you were not subject to this kind of indoctrination although it does grow weaker with time. You apparently were also so indoctrinated or your parents would not have warned you as "when I dropped out of college, my parents damn near convinced me I'd never amount to much".

You might note that I referred to unconscious feelings. There is a very real paradigm within American society to the effect that those who are not hard working and successful are unworthy, even if there is a valid reason for this. Therefore they should be left to their own self created problems, even if they were not self created. This appears to me to originate in the Calvinist religious doctrines which were pretty grim. Those who do not do well are the rejected of God while those who are wealthy and doing well are God's elect. This is taken as God's sign as to who are the rejects and who are the elect. So a smart cookie who doesn't want to be known as condemned to hell as a slacker works hard so that he can be known as one of the elect. Much of this is actually in Sociology text books. Just not the part linking this to conservative politics and thinking. At least I am not aware of those as pre existing ideas.

Ted

So what is the intent of this thread? Bashing the ".01%", conservative beliefs, and giving your support for OWS? Just curious because that's what is seemed like to me when I read it.

_________________
I eat ego's for breakfast!
Sincerely, Ego.

Well, for me anyway, the motivation is not being rejected, or not, by "God" (who I don't believe exists as described by the worlds major religions), but rather, I'm willing to work hard in order to not live under a bridge. Those who are not deserve to live under a bridge. Whild I'd like to see the mutually cooperative society that Tom frequently discusses, such a thing is currently contrary to human nature. Perhaps we'll mature to that level some day, but I think the conventional wisdom is that (most) IUOC's who reach that level "graduate" to some other PMR, leaving the "average" human maturity relatively unchanged, thus this species, in this PMR may never rise to that level.

However, my motivation is pragmatic, not religious. I like sleeping in a comfortable, dry place. I like having a place I can store my things in relative safety. I like my toys, and I like to have disposable income to do things like party with my friends in warm, tropical places with swimming pools, rum drinks, and topless waitresses. I'd rather use my excess income, to the extent that it exists, for doing those kinds of things, as opposed to having it confiscated from me and given to someone who would rather sit around on their ass all day doing nothing.

But I'm not sure exactly the intent of your post or the point you're trying to make.

Information
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Lumpy and DF,

You might not be drawing the connection but what Tom says in MBT is that the true purpose for our existence here in PMR as we appear to exist in this VR is the interactions that we engage in with other IUOCs, also participating here in the PMR simulation. The purpose of those interactions is the reduction of entropy, the reduction of disorder within our digital minds which improves the quality of our consciousness, or as Tom uses the acronym, QOC. And not only do we improve our QOC but we also improve thereby the QOC of AUM as Tom's term for the present state of development of Everything That Is which we as IUOCs are integral parts of and together as one Thing/Being are in total. Improve the parts/improve the totality. We are working our way to the connection, trust me.

This works as PMR is designed even if we do not know anything about MBT or spirituality or religion or anything but grab and run or do unto others and then split or do unto others before they can do you or however you think of it. The reason it works is that there will always be feedback. It may take you many round trips through PMR but the feed back will eventually improve your attitude and your QOC. You will learn to behave better because doing so will allow you to feel better. To experience sensations and pleasures that are outside of the scope of those living by violence and taking from others. You will take your memories of your recent past life back to NPMR and there spend some time integrating it with the sum of all of your previous lives. It will be pointed out to you how your better interactions provide a gain in the net pleasure of your life and of each life past. So you will go back into the PMR simulation with a just slightly improved basis and understanding for a start to live your next life. Still working towards that connection.

So we have read MBT and possibly more than once. What further did it tell us. It told us that the best way to guide our interactions was in terms of preserving and optimizing free will. That free will was an absolute necessary ingredient to consciousness. So you do not grab and run or do unto others any more. These are obviously attacks upon their free will. Going further, you start to protect the free will of those who cannot protect their own selves. Not just looking out for your children or your wife. Looking out for the neighbors kid being bullied. Looking out for that obnoxious retard that wants to come play with your kids. Looking out for that elderly lady being harassed on the street corner or perhaps just needing the prosaic help across the street. Or you start to contribute to charities that aid those with some kind of problem.

So here finally is the connection. You don't categorize the world as the deserving and the non deserving. The elect of God and the rejects. The obviously blessed as a sign of God's blessing and election versus the obvious losers as a sign of God's condemnation. Or the unconscious bias for the fortunate and against the unfortunate if you have rejected the concept of God. You don't reject the concept of social services because you see some receive them undeservedly to the detriment of those who really need and deserve them as fellow human beings who will suffer without or perhaps not even survive. You don't note graft and corruption with envy but work to prevent it so that social services are more efficient or use its existence as an excuse to eliminate social services needed by many. You don't use lies like the idea that Medicare is less efficient and graft prone than private insurance which has been studied and proven to be that, a lie, and only potentially beneficial to the insurance companies that would take over the business. You don't bias economy affecting laws so that 99% of citizens are disenfranchised and controlled and effectively robbed for the benefit of and by the remaining 1%. These are all violations of the free will of the many by the few. These all relate to the connection of the MBT model of behavior that I described as things not to do while the Calvinist model tends to bias behavior toward these things, all unconsciously.

As I have said, MBT is not an ivory tower conception to think about and admire. It is a model of how this reality came to be, is put together and how it works. It explains our place within the whole and the responsibility of the whole for us and of us towards the whole. It provides the basis of an effective moral code. A description of a good way to live and a reason to do so. This is all one whole and integrate Oneness. And the Calvinist view of religion and mankind and God is very much contrary to MBT as a view of separateness. A separateness of man from man and a separateness of man from God. Calvinism is very much opposed to Tom's teachings within MBT yet is a common underpinning of the unconscious biases of many humans who were subjected to its tenets during their formative years as children. Do you see the connection?

Ted

Good post Ted.

_________________
Mike

No, I don't do any of those things, except possibly I DO categorize the deserving and the non deserving, depending on their actions and choices. Drop out of high school and sit around doing crystal meth all day long, and you'll get what's coming to you. I have no sympathy for those people, no desire to help, and CERTAINLY no desire to have my money forcibly extracted from me in the form of taxation to be given to them.

That doesn't mean I feel that everyone down on their luck deserves it, certainly not. But those whose actions, or lack thereof, could accurately predict their current poor circumstances deserve no sympathy, or assistance.



But, I can add and subtract (and multiply and divide, but that's not necessary here). On average, we collect about $100k in Medicare taxes from an individual throughout their life. On average, we spend about $300k in benefits for individuals.

That is not sustainable.

Solving such problems is an entirely different matter, if they are true in fact. My reference to Medicare was to the fact that it was observed to have very low overheads on the order of 5% so 95% of total cost goes to actual benefits. The typical 'insurance company' insuring the same range of benefits has overheads in the neighborhood of 20% to 25% which includes much higher levels of management and their compensation, extensive marketing expense and of course, profit for the private insurance company. Then if you refuse to permit shopping for or controlling medicine prices as a gift to the Big Pharma industry, paying so much for medicines that you could more cheaply buy them from Europe including shipping, which was of course made illegal to protect the profits of Big Pharma, one can expect expenses to bloat. As one on Medicare I know about this one.

Also doctors and the whole medical establishment also charge very dearly for their services. The typical doctor in America quickly 'earns' back his school costs and enters the 'landed gentry' class within gated communities, etc. In Europe and South and Central America, doctors are well off in comparison to the rest of their society but basically live like and among those of what we would call middle class within their society. They typically, instead of leaving school and internship and possibly specialist training deeply in debt for their education, are state subsidized. They pay this back by providing a number of hours per week to state medical programs such as Medicare and Medicaid within their countries. What you hear in the way of propaganda about medical service here being so much higher in quality than elsewhere is just that: propaganda. The very top end and most expensive services may be available here but the general quality of you as a member of the 99% receiving medical treatment would do as well or better in many other countries, particularly say Switzerland or one of the Scandinavian countries.

Again this is something which I know about having overseen the treatment of my parents illnesses in their last 10 years between them. The doctors were 'practicing' medicine. It was up to me to catch missed congestive heart failure, mis diagnosis of major illness, drug errors, procedure errors and general incompetence that could have been very damaging if not fatal. The kinds of treatment that they specify in 'rehabilitation' nursing homes is absurdly expensive and also absurdly ineffectual. My personal experience since then has not been so great either. I cured my own heart block with high levels of vitamin C for inflammation instead of the very expensive type of pace maker that the doctor wished to install. They have not yet figured out why I tend to retain fluids although I will admit that I have not either. I have received more benefit from healing by Tom and board members than I have from medical science, which has absolutely no clue about ankylosing spondylitis, which is my major health problem.

What is your source for your statistical data about benefits and contributions? I know that statistics, real data, are available showing what I state here because I have posted them in the past. What is the source of factual information to back up the statistics that you give? Are you absolutely sure that Calvinism is not at the core of your attitudes? There is a lot to recommend the concept that even drug addiction in our society is deliberately uncontrolled. Why not let those who are no in the elect choose to off themselves with drugs?

Ted