Bruno on Economics
Bruno Girin today wrote a very comprehensive comment about my previous blog post about Free Culture.
I thought it was good enough to post as a full post and also add my own reply at the bottom:
It’s all down to the concept of scarcity, which is the corner stone of market economy. Market economy works something like this: when a resource is scarce somewhere, you will look for a provider than has a surplus of that resource and is ready to exchange it against something you have that he wants. For example, Argh went hunting and has a lot of meat but no fruit. Urgh went collecting fruit and has a lot of fruit but no meat. Argh and Urgh agree to exchange meat against fruit to address their respective scarcity problems.
Money is the same, it’s just a resource that’s easier to carry and exchange than a wheelbarrow of strawberries. But it only works because of its scarcity. If everybody became a millionaire overnight, money would lose its value. And here lies the rub in buying over the net. You can’t buy with virtual money because it can potentially be duplicated so you have to come up with payment mechanisms that can link a virtual buyer and a virtual seller to a real buyer and seller that have real money and goods. The infrastructure to do this is far from simple and doesn’t cross borders easily. It is also hampered by the fact that on the net you are anonymous. Interestingly enough, payment is lot easier on a mobile phone because your phone is linked to a SIM card, that has a number, that is administered by a network operator that allocates it to a real person that is billed every month or has pre-paid for usage of the mobile. So payments engines have a way to link the purchase to a real person and therefore real money: bill the network operator and the operator will forward the bill to the buyer. You can’t do that on the net because you don’t have this chain so you have to devise ways to re-construct the chain for every single payment.
The other aspect about the net and computing that scuppers all economic models is the fact that it has completely changed the concept of scarcity. In the real world, duplicating an object takes time and effort, whether it’d be a pencil or an aircraft carrier. This gives you automatic scarcity and you can attach a price to it. In the virtual world, constructing an initial prototype (whether it be a computer program, a song, a book, a 3D aircraft carrier) is time consuming but duplicating it is easy and virtually free. So there is no scarcity on the objects anymore, there is scarcity on the skills required to build the original prototype. So if you follow standard economic principles, once a digital object is built, its price falls to 0 because it costs nothing to duplicate and there is no natural scarcity; the only possible scarcity is artificial and enforced through things like licenses, DRM, etc.
So free culture isn’t killing our culture or economy, it’s just applying the scarcity principle in market economy to digital goods. The problem is that all standard economic models are based around physical goods where there is a cost associated with duplicating them and don’t work anymore in a situation where duplication is free. In particular, the real world depends a lot on middle-men who can source a particular scarce resource, whether it be grocery retailers or music shops. They add real value to the supply chain in the real world but that value drops significantly with digital goods. So they basically find that they are out of a job in the digital world and aren’t too happy about it, which is probably where this accusation that free culture destroys our culture and economy stems from.
I can tell you what is scarce: people’s time. If someone can work out an economic model where people are paid for the work they perform and not for the copying of that work. We’d probably have a better argument for all kinds of Free Culture including Free Software.
Tags: free culture, free software
Time is an illusion created by the egoic mind because it uses the perceptions of past and future as one of the mind’s primary methods of control over the true self.
All things of this realm, including money, only hold value within the egoic mind. When you are no longer unconscious and no longer identify with the mind, “things”, including money lose all real value. Just as Monopoly money only has perceived value within the game; so does “real” money too only have perceived value within the game of incarnated life. When one is bonded to and vested in the egoic mind, then this value becomes more vested than when one is free of the unconsciousness of the egoic mind.
While the article has merit, it only does so within the context of the game; just like discussing Park Place does in Monopoly. This is not to say that money hasn’t any value, only to say that it has limited value from my point of view. Like a hammer, it is just a tool, not something to possess, as no thing (or nothing) can truly be obtained. The world of from is a created projection from the self within that is beyond mind.
I can think of two successful ways to accomplish that:
The same way most scientists in academia gets paid.
- OR -
The same way the BBC gets paid.
“If someone can work out an economic model where people are paid for the work they perform and not for the copying of that work. We’d probably have a better argument for all kinds of Free Culture including Free Software.”
Someone has worked this out. Its called a resource based economy. Please see more information below.
http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/resource-based-economy
Ron: Time is an illusion, lunch time doubly so.
Money is only real in the economic social game, not in life.
Things can be possessed, they are a function of your ability to protect them from others and more recently the ability of you to convince others (i.e. society) to protect possessions from themselves. Somehow this works.
doctormo,
What would be your opinion on having a BBC-like tax on all computer systems, as an economic model for Free Software?
At the quantum level (and beyond), “things” do not exist. All is energy.
” Like a hammer, it is just a tool, not something to possess, as no thing (or nothing) can truly be obtained. ”
Uh huh. I know that you “spiritual” types that reject the material world think this is something new and something unique to only you. But guess what, no one thinks money IN ITSELF has any value. It is only its use AS A TOOL, as the original article points out* that has value. Money is easier to carry around than a barrel full of strawberries and it most certainly is easier to use money than to take my meat, trade it to someone who has wool and trade that to someone that has a shovel and then trade that to the strawberry grower because he doesn’t actually want my meat.
And this nonsense about ridding ourselves of the Ego. Every single religion basically preaches the same thing, yet you are all miserable failures in accomplishing any real change. Maybe it’s time we started to EMBRACE our ego. In so doing we’ll be so large that we’re not threatened by others with similarly large egos.
Doctor Mo thanks for posting this. Your’s is one of the few (and nixternal’s) interesting blogs on Planet Ubuntu. (Ok that other guy that works at Canonical and plays in that band type thing, his are interesting too and the dragon letting guy).
The BBC has it’s problems, although they’re nothing like the problems of quality in commercial channels.
Whent he BBC can release all it’s materials (not just published programming) as copyleft, then I’ll believe that model can work. So far the BBC have been quite a bad offender of abusing copyright license rubbish in order to crap on the British license fee payer.
“Money is easier to carry around than a barrel full of strawberries and it most certainly is easier to use money than to take my meat, trade it to someone who has wool and trade that to someone that has a shovel and then trade that to the strawberry grower because he doesn’t actually want my meat.”
Its also easier to “print” out of thin air via a few strokes on a keyboard ala The Federal Reserve.
One of the many problems with money is that a few people in the world have the majority of money. This is not fair and is the reason why 50% of the world is in poverty where they cannot get adequate food, shelter, water, and clothing.
Money itself is irrelevant in light of our technological progress. We have the means of producing an abundance of food to feed every single person in the world. We do not because those without money don’t count. During the great depression, there was an abundance of food, but there was not enough money, so farmers were instructed to destroy their food and so people starved.
Money is a tool like the cottengin, it served a purpose at one point in history but is obsolete due to technological advances. I advise reading more about the Resource Based Economy from http://www.thevenusproject.com.
@Aoirthoir An Broc
”I know that you “spiritual” types that reject the material world think this is something new and something unique to only you.”
I don’t reject the World, only aknowledge it without personal vestment in it. Also, this isn’t some new thing, in fact, it’s very, very old. (in perceived time)
“But guess what, no one thinks money IN ITSELF has any value. It is only its use AS A TOOL, as the original article points out* that has value.”
That is true, but it is the vestment in it, in that belief in value and how one halds it that perceives it, that is the real difference.
“And this nonsense about ridding ourselves of the Ego. Every single religion basically preaches the same thing, yet you are all miserable failures in accomplishing any real change.”
1) I am not a religion, nor do I subscribe to them.
2) Many religions, many traditions, and many teachers expound this simple yet often not heard or understood message. You are blaming the exoteric for what can only be found within and with the esoteric. The answers, the change are not “out there”, but within you.
“Maybe it’s time we started to EMBRACE our ego. In so doing we’ll be so large that we’re not threatened by others with similarly large egos.”
By embracing the ego, you feed it, and your identify with the egoic mind, versus with your true self. It is like embracing the clothing that you wear, claiming it to be who you really are.
Yes Ron, but I really do consist of my ego and many other parts in constant variance. I am not so much a whole as a fuzzy mess of possible reactions.
@Michael
“Its also easier to “print” out of thin air via a few strokes on a keyboard ala The Federal Reserve.”
My commentary was only on the “enlightened” opinion that money is just a tool. Of course it is just a tool. In itself it has zero value. And the fact that we have fiat money now makes it no less of a tool. The value of money has only and will only always be in its acceptance as a tool for trade.
I agree with the rest of your comments in principle however, “Money is a tool like the cottengin, it served a purpose at one point in history but is obsolete due to technological advances,” is only true if we agree it is true. As long as money, even fiat money, is accepted, it has value.
@Ron
“I don’t reject the World, only aknowledge it without personal vestment in it. Also, this isn’t some new thing, in fact, it’s very, very old. (in perceived time)”
That’s precisely my point. This ridding of the ego, isn’t anything new. As a philosophy it’s failed to make any marked difference in improving the human condition. In fact, it’s led persons to simply lay down and take whatever crap religious and political leaders wanted to hand to folks.
Now as to your not having any personal vestment in the world, that’s as much malarky as every single other person that claims such. All the anti-materialists seem frankly to be as materialist as the rest of us. The world’s a material place ans as the rest of us you are vested in eating, breathing, walking, touching, and dare I say typing on the latest “vestment” the world has to offer. Your actions of participating in the physical world belie your claim to have no personal vestment in it.
“That is true, but it is the vestment in it, in that belief in value and how one halds it that perceives it, that is the real difference.”
The only vestment folks have in it is that it is a tool to make trade easier. Other than that no one thinks it has any value. Which is exactly what you said, it’s a tool, nothing more. You can dance around the language in a pseudo rejection of materialism, but you’re as vested in materialism as the most staunch Celt Pagan.
“1) I am not a religion, nor do I subscribe to them.”
I could just as well have said philosophy. Many religions and many philosophies teach a rejection of egoism.
“2) Many religions, many traditions, and many teachers expound this simple yet often not heard or understood message. You are blaming the exoteric for what can only be found within and with the esoteric. The answers, the change are not “out there”, but within you.”
Actually this message of rejecting the ego is the most heard message expounded by both religions and philosophies. It is heard, understood and followed and men (waep men, womb men and all other men) of all sorts, billions of them, have for centuries been rejecting their egos.
“By embracing the ego, you feed it, and your identify with the egoic mind, versus with your true self. It is like embracing the clothing that you wear, claiming it to be who you really are.”
Nope. That’s what anti-egoists that have been running and ruining things for the last several thousand years would have us believe. I can embrace my clothing and not claim it is who I really am but claim it is a PART of who I am. I can embrace my hair and my finger and my feelings and my thoughts and my ideals and my ideas and my vision and my family and every other thing that touches me and claim it is a part of who I am. I celebrate myself in full in all things.
Your rejection of these principles has been the earmark of the Kyriarchy world wide for the entire history of men on Earth. By convincing men to reject their egos, the Kyriarchy has convinced men to become slaves to those in the Kyriarchy. Rejecting egoism has been nothing short of complete and utter failure.
@Doctor Mo
“Yes Ron, but I really do consist of my ego and many other parts in constant variance. I am not so much a whole as a fuzzy mess of possible reactions.”
Yup.
@Aoirthoir An Broc
“I don’t reject the World, only aknowledge it without personal vestment in it. Also, this isn’t some new thing, in fact, it’s very, very old. (in perceived time)”
That’s precisely my point.
>> So we are in agreement. ok.
This ridding of the ego, isn’t anything new.
>> So we are in agreement. ok.
As a philosophy it’s failed to make any marked difference in improving the human condition.
>> I disagree. It has improved my condition.
In fact, it’s led persons to simply lay down and take whatever crap religious and political leaders wanted to hand to folks.
>> That’s your opinion and your truth, which you are most certainly entitled to. I see it differently.
Now as to your not having any personal vestment in the world, that’s as much malarky as every single other person that claims such.
>> Again, that is your truth, not mine. I’m only vested to it within the context of the game, that’s all. Think of it like this, if we’re all at a table playing Monopoly, we’re all vested in the game. Now assume that some of the people really believe the Monopoly game IS life, while others at the table know it’s just a game. the level of vestment is different because the level of awareness is different.
All the anti-materialists seem frankly to be as materialist as the rest of us.
>> You speak in absolutes as if you know all for all. I find this to be a very common point of view. Many people are polarized to absolutes in their ways of thinking. As for the materialism, I need it while I’m here, food, clothing, shelter, etc, but I don’t lust for it or live to acquire it. I have never gone without whatever I need.
The world’s a material place ans as the rest of us you are vested in eating, breathing, walking, touching, and dare I say typing on the latest “vestment” the world has to offer. Your actions of participating in the physical world belie your claim to have no personal vestment in it.
>> Again, all within the context of the game. My opinions are mine, but you are free to believe and act as you wish. I’m not vested in “right vs wrong” or any such thinking. I’m simply sharing an opinion is all and having a discussion.
“That is true, but it is the vestment in it, in that belief in value and how one halds it that perceives it, that is the real difference.”
The only vestment folks have in it is that it is a tool to make trade easier. Other than that no one thinks it has any value. Which is exactly what you said, it’s a tool, nothing more. You can dance around the language in a pseudo rejection of materialism, but you’re as vested in materialism as the most staunch Celt Pagan.
>> If you believe so, then for you, it is. Yes, money is a tool, yes, it matters within the Monopoly game, but many people lust after it and will do anything (or almost anything) for it. There is a difference between having and using money to live, and using it for conspicuous consumption.
“1) I am not a religion, nor do I subscribe to them.”
I could just as well have said philosophy. Many religions and many philosophies teach a rejection of egoism.
>> Yes, but religion is a system which tends to block in the mind vs freeing it. Some of it’s ideals are good, the core, but mankind perverts it and uses it for power plays, politics, ego, etc. (Ever see the Pope admit he is wrong? No. He’’s Infallible”. That’s ego – and hypocrisy.)
“2) Many religions, many traditions, and many teachers expound this simple yet often not heard or understood message. You are blaming the exoteric for what can only be found within and with the esoteric. The answers, the change are not “out there”, but within you.”
Actually this message of rejecting the ego is the most heard message expounded by both religions and philosophies. It is heard, understood and followed and men (waep men, womb men and all other men) of all sorts, billions of them, have for centuries been rejecting their egos.
>> Yes, but to what degree? Some more than others. Humankind is slow to learn and grow. Humans aren’t perfect, the species is still learning.
“By embracing the ego, you feed it, and your identify with the egoic mind, versus with your true self. It is like embracing the clothing that you wear, claiming it to be who you really are.”
Nope. That’s what anti-egoists that have been running and ruining things for the last several thousand years would have us believe.
>> As you believe it….
I can embrace my clothing and not claim it is who I really am but claim it is a PART of who I am. I can embrace my hair and my finger and my feelings and my thoughts and my ideals and my ideas and my vision and my family and every other thing that touches me and claim it is a part of who I am. I celebrate myself in full in all things.
>> So who you are only exists within the realm of physicality? You only exist within the Monopoly game and no part of you exists outside of that? You can scientifically show the physiological process of moving an arm to pick up one can of soda versus another, but what or who makes that choice?
Your rejection of these principles has been the earmark of the Kyriarchy world wide for the entire history of men on Earth. By convincing men to reject their egos, the Kyriarchy has convinced men to become slaves to those in the Kyriarchy. Rejecting egoism has been nothing short of complete and utter failure.
>> You see it as patriarchy as defined by Ms v? Ok. Interesting opinion.
>> Are you trying to prove something? Your words seem to be coming from the position of “I’m right. Your wrong.” You are certainly entitled to your opinions, just as you’re entitled to believe in the concepts of right vs wrong.
@Doctor Mo
“Yes Ron, but I really do consist of my ego and many other parts in constant variance. I am not so much a whole as a fuzzy mess of possible reactions.”
>> If you believe so, but it’s ok. You’ll be more surprised that way at the end of this game.
Yes, yes, all of us have our opinions, some of us though are able to see a little more clearly.
“That’s precisely my point.
>> So we are in agreement. ok.”
What we are in agreement with is that money is just a tool. It’s exactly the same agreement that every single human being on the planet has about money. If money could not be used as a tool to procure things, it would have no use. So your statement that it is “just a tool” is of course the entire point. Non-materialists are not new in this thinking.
“This ridding of the ego, isn’t anything new.
>> So we are in agreement. ok”
We’re in agreement here.
“As a philosophy it’s failed to make any marked difference in improving the human condition.
>> I disagree. It has improved my condition.”
Perhaps I should state again. It’s failed to make any MARKED difference in improving the HUMAN condition. Individuals can benefit by rejecting technology for instance. However, humans as a group, the human condition, have in many ways seen a marked difference and been improved markedly by technology. The fact that you personally feel an advantage by rejecting your ego, does not demonstrate that humans have benefited as a group. Indeed, this rejection of ego is what has caused so many to lay down and accept whatever commands their slave drivers have given. It has led to wars, murders, abuse, violence and more. Were we all to embrace our egos and see ourselves as important, we’d stop listening to those that would convince us they are better than we.
“In fact, it’s led persons to simply lay down and take whatever crap religious and political leaders wanted to hand to folks.
>> That’s your opinion and your truth, which you are most certainly entitled to. I see it differently.”
No, it’s a fact or history. That is, the elimination of ego touted by nearly every faith and philosophy has failed entirely to encourage people to reject the crap just mentioned.
“>> Again, that is your truth, not mine. I’m only vested to it within the context of the game, that’s all. Think of it like this, if we’re all at a table playing Monopoly, we’re all vested in the game. Now assume that some of the people really believe the Monopoly game IS life, while others at the table know it’s just a game. the level of vestment is different because the level of awareness is different.”
You can redifine reality with the word “game”. But this “game” you will continue to be vested in heavily. You will not cease to breath, eat, drink, walk, talk, and live. Even to cease that you have to be vested in the physical. You cannot simply say “I cease” and then cease to exist. You would need to use physical means to cease, which is itself a heavy vestment in this reality. Wordplay does not change the reality.
Your level of awareness is no different than anyone else’s level of awareness. That itself is one of the great illusions of those of the non-materialist (and spiritual) paths. In claiming to reject ego, they (and you) puff up their ego as if they’re awareness is on a different level than anyone or everyone else’s. It’s not. You can pretend you are not heavily vested in this reality, but those of us that truly do have a different level of awareness (it’s called not deceiving ourselves with word games), know you’re as full of malarky as the rest of us.
“>> You speak in absolutes as if you know all for all. I find this to be a very common point of view. Many people are polarized to absolutes in their ways of thinking. As for the materialism, I need it while I’m here, food, clothing, shelter, etc, but I don’t lust for it or live to acquire it. I have never gone without whatever I need.”
Let’s quote what i am speaking in absolutes about:
“The world’s a material place ans as the rest of us you are vested in eating, breathing, walking, touching, and dare I say typing on the latest “vestment” the world has to offer.”
Yes I can speak in absolutes in that case because it is absolutely true. As to your claim that you don’t “lust” for it, I never spoke of lust. You absolutely do have a need for it, as you admit, which is precisely the vestment in if that you have of which I spoke. Pretending that having a need is in NO WAY a vestment in that thing will not change that it IS a vestment. (Which is really a garment). You’re clothed in this reality, as we are. So clothed you are invested in certain requirements as the rest of us are. You are not mysteriously above the need for any of these, whether you lust after them or not is irrelevant.
“>> Again, all within the context of the game. My opinions are mine, but you are free to believe and act as you wish. I’m not vested in “right vs wrong” or any such thinking. I’m simply sharing an opinion is all and having a discussion.”
An opinion that your less invested in this reality than the rest of us? That eliminating ego will somehow help anything? Sorry you’re wrong and I’m right.
“>> If you believe so, then for you, it is. Yes, money is a tool, yes, it matters within the Monopoly game, but many people lust after it and will do anything (or almost anything) for it. There is a difference between having and using money to live, and using it for conspicuous consumption.”
Now, as a couple of sentences ago you bring up the topic of lust. I never discussed lust or the degree to which any particular person desires any particular tool. All I said was that it being a tool is not something known only to [so-called] non-materialists.
As to the difference between simply having and using money and using it for conspicuous consumption, it has long been a tradition of those that have much of it, to convince those with little, to reject it, and ego. That rejecting money and ego are somehow paths to a more enlightened life. That is VERY VERY convenient as it continues to centralize moeny and thus power, into the hands of the few. Which is precisely what this post was about in the first place. I reject the idea that money, using it, having lots of it, and trying to acquire it, is somehow in any sense of the word evil. If one wishes to do good, money is a tool that one can use to benefit people now without the need to pretend that this reality, and the pain people experience now, is not real.
“>> Yes, but religion is a system which tends to block in the mind vs freeing it. Some of it’s ideals are good, the core, but mankind perverts it and uses it for power plays, politics, ego, etc. (Ever see the Pope admit he is wrong? No. He’’s Infallible”. That’s ego – and hypocrisy.)”
Philosophy does the same thing. As well both also englighten. I reject once concept of many religions outright and that is the elimination of ego. Though there are other things in religion, and in specific religions, I might reject, there are also interesting and good things in them.
Now your claim about the “infallibility of the Pope” is one often miscontrued first deliberately by protestants and now of course by others. That infallibility only counts according to Catholic doctrine in regards to spiritual matters and then even so it’s only been used ONCE regarding ONE issue. In no way has the Church or the Pope ever claimed that he is infallible in any other or any effective sense of the word.
The very problem with religion is the very belief you are proposing, that we eliminate ego. When we VALUE ourselves WHOLLY, then we reject things that harm us, such as war and violence. If all of us had huge egos, none of us would want to die needlessly and war would cease.
“>> Yes, but to what degree? Some more than others. Humankind is slow to learn and grow. Humans aren’t perfect, the species is still learning.”
You said that in regards to my statement about rejectiong of ego being one of the most taught beliefs. First, let’s eliminate this bullshit that humans aren’t perfect. They ARE. Perfect in its most ancient uses means WHOLE. It does not mean almighty, it does not mean that we do not die. A squirrel is perfectly suited to being a squirrel and a human is perfectly suited to being a human, thus as a human, we are perfect humans.
Humankind though is not slow to learn and grow. In a mere five thousand years of recorded history we have gone from a collection of tiny tribes eeking out a living hunting and gathering, to explore the planets in our solar system. Our evolution socialogically has exponentially surpassed any other form of evolution in history. We have done AMAZING things as Human Achievement Hour highlighted recently. So no,humans are not slow to learn to grow, we’ve learned faster and grown more than any other species on this planet. And yes we are still learning and we will continue to learn for eons. That is a testament to the fact that we are not slow to learn and grow.
Now to your question about what degree? Some more than others? Yes, those that reject ego most, are the masses that are filled with self loathing and low self esteem. The ones that “fail” to reject ego in these vast degrees tend to be the accomplishers, and the wealth owners. Rejecting ego and becoming convinced that we are “nothing” has never helped anyone. A person with a large ego, can recognize zirself as wonderfully amazing AND see the amazing qualities in others. Whereas a person that has rejected ego and come to view themselves as naught and unworthy, and thus because of rejection of ego has come to have low self esteem, cannot see others as having any form of greatness. Indeed rejection of ego is responsible for the vast majority of violent crimes, abuse, rape and other terrible things in our societies worldwide.
“Nope. That’s what anti-egoists that have been running and ruining things for the last several thousand years would have us believe.
>> As you believe it….”
Not as I believe it but as the facts lay bare. Your view has been the dominant teaching worldwide for centuries. It has not prevented any of the problems that it claimed it would prevent. It’s time we tried something new, something esteem building.
“>> So who you are only exists within the realm of physicality? You only exist within the Monopoly game and no part of you exists outside of that? You can scientifically show the physiological process of moving an arm to pick up one can of soda versus another, but what or who makes that choice?”
Really that’s what you just took from what I said? See that’s the view of an egoist. Since the ego is not physical, since I believe in expanding the ego, a fellow egoist would understand I am not speaking of the physical world. You though, for all your rhetoric, are so tied to the physical world only, that you cannot imagine that when a man (waep man, womb man etc) says that “I celebrate myself in full in all things,” that this would include all things physical, all things emotional, all things intellectual, all things moral, all things religious, all things philosophical, all things in all realms in all areas that ze exists.
“>> You see it as patriarchy as defined by Ms v? Ok. Interesting opinion.”
Nope. Patriarchy is a myth that has never existed excepted in the smallest of tribes. Patriarchy means rule by fathers, something we’ve never had in urban societies. I said Kyriarchy and I meant it. It’s a term that in its essence boils down to the rule of one group over another to their detriment.
“>> Are you trying to prove something? Your words seem to be coming from the position of “I’m right. Your wrong.” You are certainly entitled to your opinions, just as you’re entitled to believe in the concepts of right vs wrong.”
Well I am right and you are wrong. What’s so hard to understand about that? However in this case I’m speaking from facts your speaking from a make believe world of fluffy unicorns. Claim all you want (for instance) that you are less invested in the physical than others, but the fact that you are in the physical proves your claim, is just an illusion.
“>> If you believe so, but it’s ok. You’ll be more surprised that way at the end of this game.”
No I won’t. That’s a typical non-materialist shaming tactic. See you don’t KNOW what lies after death any more than anyone else does. So you can’t use the thing you don’t know and someone else doesn’t know, and the fact that you CLAIM to KNOW it as PROOF that you are knowing it. That’s simply bullshit circular reasoning.
Now when I say that I am right because I AM right, because I have used facts, well that’s just beautiful truth.
In any case your quote was in response to my quoting Doctor MO when he said “Yes Ron, but I really do consist of my ego and many other parts in constant variance. I am not so much a whole as a fuzzy mess of possible reactions.” And well, he IS. He is not JUST his ego or JUST his physical, he is a huge variance of many things. So your statement that we would be surprised at the end of the “game” (just an attempt to control the language and thus define what we are talking about in some fantasy realm) is irrelevant because he was not talking about “when it’s all over” but the who he is, RIGHT NOW.