Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Methinkshe

  1. No, not at all; it's because we have managed to extend this thread into the realm of ideas and concepts and philosophies and beyond mere recitation....at least, that's why I have found it an interesting thread. Please keep spouting........................
  2. I think that in the phrase I have bolded you have probably stated the nub of the point being debated - that to treat money as a substance is by default to confer on it intrinsic value...which we know is not, nor ever should be the case. But it is unarguable that many people make this basic error.
  3. I couldn't agree more; but that doesn't prevent some people from believing that the tenner in their pocket has intrinsic worth. Now, why did we get here and why are we dicussing this point? I particularly said to ASteve to dismiss the phenomenon as being unimportant to this debate, yet........ And now I can't remeember where we should have been heading...I'll have to trawl back through a dozen or more posts; such are the inconveniences of growing old...or maybe I just have a very poor memory, full stop!
  4. Okay, let me explain what I mean when I say that there are people who believe that money has "intrinsic" worth. Take a five year old child and give him a ten pound note. He is old enough to comprehend that the tenner has value in terms of his ability to exchange it for a bucket-load of sweeties at the local corner shop, but lacks the knowledge and experience to appreciate the representative attribute which assigns to this particular piece of paper (and no other) its especial exchange value. That is what I mean when I say that there are people who believe that money has intrinsic value; they are childlike in their belief - through ignorance. What do you mean by the term "intrinsic" when applied to money?
  5. I could not, in all honesty and as one who loves language, subscribe to the view that likes and dislikes are synonymous with values.
  6. There are those who through sheer ignorance believe that money has intrinsic worth - it shouldn't be the case but I know it is. Do not concern yourself with this phenomenon in terms of this debate unless you are convinced that those who move money in terms that have recognisable effects are amongst the ignorant. I do not believe this is the case. The money movers and shakers are well aware of the intrinsic worthlessness of money and that any value is based on trust/confidence. I appreciate your mathematical purity and I admit that I may be extending the term "chaos" beyond its purest defintion in terms of physics; however I incline inasmuch as I am able as a non-mathematician and non-physicist to take the purist view you embrace. I think that lineararity can cope with most conditions with which we are presented but I think it fails when we are presented with the non-conforming events that historically have occurred, are presently observable and will occur in the future. The aeroplane stall, for instance. It is a rare event and most turbulence leads to a bumpy landing, but there are occasions when an aeroplane simply falls out of the sky. These events occur within the realms of predictable physics but cannot be extrapolated from linear trends. It is such events which we are addressing, is it not? And they seem to transgress the rules of linearity (and I know I am taking liberties, here, but please forgive my layman translation of mathematical terms) and venture into chaos, a poorly understood realm although not one without its own order, however unapparent such order might be at our present stage of understanding. I think I'd agree with you on the definition of chaos although I am incapable of expressing it as a mathematical concept. I comprehend the philosophy if not the physics/mathematics... No, like you I despise the cult of the expert. I don't believe that it is "experts" who are able to latch on to these non-linearities so much as thinking individuals, whatever their personal subject persuasion. As for the extent to which we can influence outcomes....every marathon begins with the first step....
  7. Agreed; if you have two cows, milk 'em for all they're worth! Good thread, btw, I have already circulated this amongst my email contacts to their great amusement.
  8. But are our actions guided by values, whether or not they are appreciated or understood by others. You have not answered this question. Or are we just like animals filling basic instinctive needs - eat, sleep, f***k?
  9. That is to apply linear projections. To use the aeroplane metaphor, there is a stall-point which a few, in the know, can predict, say by engine noise, whilst all around other passengers are projecting a safe, if bumpy, landing. It is that small difference in understanding to which I refer. We are largely conditioned by trends and linearity and find it difficult to either foresee or even accommodate non-linearity - i.e. chaos. However, there are a few who do. A proportion of that ilk find their way to sites like HPC.
  10. If the value of money is the velocity of money, then the velocity of money is dependent on trust, since exchanges of promissory notes cannot be accomplished without trust, never mind accelerated. Therefore, what we are speaking of is trust, which in turn is dependent on confidence. And it is that which is presently in short supply - at least, it is to those in the know. Many people will continue using money as though it has intrinsic value, but from a position of ignorance, not of knowledge.
  11. So markets are to arbitrate values even though markets only represent the collective opinion of the day. That seems to me like a pretty shifting sandbank on which to anchor values of any description.
  12. The fact is, Injin, that both you and I know it can't be - not because we are especially clever but because maybe we are of a type that spends a lot of time thinking about these things. Which is why I understand that for the concept of value to have any value it has to be objective and beyond human evaluation - as you said in a previous post, there must be a first cause. There is either an objective standard that exists over and above humanity, or there is none - at least, none worth upholding. Otherwise, we shall all have to accept that values represent the thoughts of the day of the governing body of the day which, at the present moment is how the governing elite can "legally" defraud the taxpayer while at the same time legislating for ever more draconian punishments for the proles who attempt the same thing. Edited for typo.
  13. Unregenerate, whatever his declared affiliation....
  14. Well, that's what I picked up, too. I thought it was intentional...............
  15. Thanks for expressing so much better than I what was on my mind. Salutations, brother!
  16. I can't disagree. The universe is contained within God, if you like. He is intrinsic to and permeates the universe. Without God the universe would not exist; every atom is held together by the power of His will. He is the glue that allows unseen energy to present as visible mass, to put it another way...... As to why we need a Saviour - that comes down to the character of God - His absolute righteousness and our inability to match it. But that's another story......
  17. Well, you certainly applied your mind to that summary.......!
  18. It may do. But the god that is worshipped by followers of Islam is different in character from the God revealed in the Bible. (If you want particulars I can give them, but I do not want to delve too deep for the purpose of the main argument.) And since God is spirit and thus can only be known by what he says and does, it is impossible for two gods who by revelation are found to hold diametrically opposing positions both in word and action to be one and the same.
  19. When you read the Athanasian Creed, don't forget that it represents a poor attempt on the part of humanity to define the indefinable, encapsulate in mere words the infinite, and describe the ineffable - a contradiction in terms. But that, apart from personal experience of God, is all that we have.
  20. However it is spelt, the meaning of catholic is "universal". Moreover, the term "catholic" does not equate to Roman Catholicism. That current undestanding often equates the term "catholic" with "Roman Catholicism" is down to ignorance and not knowledge. Anyway, I am conscious that I have contributed to the derailment of this thread to the extent that it is no longer addressing Injin's OP. I should retire - at least until Injin reclaims the direction in which he wishes this thread to proceed.
  21. He doesn't, and it's a travesty perpetuated by the Roman Catholic church and, to a lesser extent, the Anglican church, to believe that He does. This is what happens to truth when humanity gets its hands on it. It is a filthy traducement of the nature and character of God and is without Biblical foundation, or any other foundation, for that matter. It is based solely on man's desire to exercise power over his fellow man. Yet, the Bible declares that we are all priests, a chosen priesthood, answerable only to one High Priest - Jesus Christ. We may constitute different body-parts (to use a metaphor) under one head, but we are enjoined not to think more highly of ourselves because we are, say, a hand, than becasue we are a toe-nail. Each part is essential to the full working of the body, and the same is true in the Christian church under the headship of Jesus Christ. I've always considered myself the arsehole in the body of Christ, btw, - rather lowly but with the useful function of expelling shit.
  22. Why do you capitalise "catholic" when I went out of my way to explain that the term "catholic" means "universal" and not "Roman Catholic" (capital letters) which is an heritical sect that declares the Pope as its head and not Jesus Christ, who alone is the head of the universal church as exemplified in the protestant reformation after many years of Roman persecution?
  23. I actually find this a statement from ignorance if one considers the extreme lengths that church forefathers went to in terms of their attempts to define the Trinity in the Athanasian creed. Would that our politicians paid a similar attention to the wording of their attempts at legislation! Here is the Athanasian creed. And please remember that the word "catholic" means "universal" and is not interchangeable with "Roman Catholic" which is a different doctrine entirely. Also, this is a human attempt to define the supra-human and, as such, will always be deficient and should be recognised as such. There is no substitute in doctrine for personal knowledge of God through His Spirit. Athanasian Creed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; 2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. 3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; 4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. 5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. 6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. 7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. 8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. 9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. 10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. 11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal. 12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. 13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty. 14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. 15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; 16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. 17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; 18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord. 19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; 20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords. 21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. 22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. 23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. 24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. 25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another. 26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal. 27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. 28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity. 29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. 30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man. 31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world. 32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. 33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood. 34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ. 35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God. 36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. 37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; 38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; 39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty; 40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. 41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies; 42. and shall give account of their own works. 43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. 44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved. Edited for typo.
  24. Neither did I, although it is a proposal worth consideration.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.