| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Work with all your cloud files (Drive, Dropbox, and Slack and Gmail attachments) and documents (Google Docs, Sheets, and Notion) in one place. Try Dokkio (from the makers of PBworks) for free. Now available on the web, Mac, Windows, and as a Chrome extension!

View
 

Thor Dialog at Facebook

Page history last edited by Michael J 5 years, 5 months ago

MJ Home

 

Started at FB https://www.facebook.com/groups/774241602654986/

Continued at Fork to Subthread Thor Dialog

Thor Mann

April 29 at 10:57pm

What if the world is NOT yet ready for the great next 'new' system?
For discussion:
In response to the challenges, conflicts and crises facing humanity, we see a number of well-intentioned and often quite persuasive efforts to conceive, develop and rally support for a 'new' system -- of social organization, of governance, of economic, of education etc. 
Some common features of such proposals are that the system must be 'global', 'unified', follow some common principles and be based on new 'holistic' awareness and attitudes of cooperation. 
Given the obstacles these ideas face in the current 'real' world, and their very diversity, it may be useful, even necessary to ask 

 

 

 

David Braden Our relationships with the living things around us are primarily based on money. Perhaps there are family relationships . . . a pet . . . But even friends can be based on those who can afford to engage in the same activity . . . 
 
 Community Sufficiency Technologies are about entering mutually beneficial relationships with the living things around us. Producing what we need for ourselves reduces the need for money and increases the value we place on the living things participating. That creates the opportunity to build resources into the system as opposed to the market based scarcity that predominates now.

 

That change takes place at the level of the individual interaction and global rules will change in response.
http://www.livingsystemsinst.org/carbon-cycling
 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 






Nora Bateson In the midst of all the intellectual material... There is a dire need for humor.

Like · Reply ·  2 · 6 hrs

Esteban Trev

 

Esteban Trev a dire need for humor desires a humorous pundit with a knack for good funny puns that somehow them with a dire need will get aright rather than in a less than funny way... for having to explain them jokes kind of takes the funny part out of the jokes so one either gets it or does not... and if someone has to explain it well it aint funny anymore...

Like · Reply · 51 mins

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M Ichael Josefowicz Esteban Trev . . .  you ask "the issue then becomes to what extent does an individual/group may willfully force another to recognize, consider and act-accordingly to close the gap between the three domains (what is, what can be, what better be)? "

My answer is no extent. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You say ". . . whilst everyone has a right to their opinions some opinions are right and some are not...them who hold the wrong opinions have no right to voice said opinions and may be required to by law to be gagged "

 

I'm assuming that I have not inaccurately taken your words out of context to change your meaning. If the words are meant to be read as written in the excerpt. I don't think I could possibly disagree with you more than I do.

 

Gagging opinions? Gag!

 

Esteban Trev why you pick the negative disagreeable propositional stance over the positive agreeable propositional stance? 

I have little evidence to assess how you have taken the words into context to get at the meanings I meant to comment and share... thus at this time it's a bit complicated to assess if you have accurately perceived them or have inaccurately perceived them... that is how accurate/inaccurate the meaning you assess corresponds with the meaning I assess... Now if you disagree that them who hold wrong opinions views assertion have a right to voice said wrong ways then what do you say of false advertisement are individuals free to make false advertisements to promote their products and services? or are individuals forced to make actually valid claims?

Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

 

M Ichael Josefowicz could you repeat the positive stance? I don't see it. 
"are individuals free to make false advertisements to promote their products and services?" Yes if they not breaking any laws.

Like · Reply · Just now

 

 

Esteban Trev Thor Mann I am going to respond out here to facilitate the flow of comments... 

- the pursuit of life and happiness as a human right 
- the right to 'make a difference' in one's life, 
- group provisions that imply one 'unified' common life style etc. 
- provisions that are meaningful and even necessary. 
- the challenges : the will have to be global -- _____rules. 
- My favorite simple example is the rule of which side of the road we drive on: it's arbitrary -- countries have different rules that work equally well, but without such a rule we'd have much more trouble reaching our different individual destinations. 
- The question is: how many such basic 'global' or group rules / agreements / laws are really necessary? 
- And what criterion to use: e.g. the number and value of 'difference' opportunities created by a rule as opposed to the value of the opportunities destroyed or constrained?  
zero be the number of rules agreements laws that be required especially when individuals willfully opt to embrace the better course of action on their own and do what better be done as it ought to be done. Of course having and following some guidelines will ease and facilitated reaching our different individual destinations... wait a second hold on there ... reframe that last sentence: --- Of course having and following some guidelines will ease and facilitated individuals reaching different destinations... via different paths... thing is that some paths do not lead to the desired destination and the issue then becomes to what extent does an individual/group may willfully force another to recognize, consider and act-accordingly to close the gap between the three domains (what is, what can be, what better be)? Some seem bent on 'my way or the highway' and then when made to take the highway they retort "I meant my way, not the highway" as we respond "I chose the highway which incidentally became my way and thus am bent on "the highway and my way and the better way". 

 

 A single righteous voice, voicing the truth of the matter, ought to suffice to guide individual actions of the individual and the collective. Just as the kind be under the law and not above the law so too the law better be under the law and not above the law... My favorite simple example is that whilst everyone has a right to their opinions some opinions are right and some are not...them who hold the wrong opinions have no right to voice said opinions and may be required to by law to be gagged without this involving the curtailment of them who hold the right opinion from voicing said right opinion and demanding that what needs and better be corrected be corrected as it better and ought to be done once  and for all... I know that some will voice " how do we know what is right and what isn't"? whilst likely professing the idea "no one knows that"! This is a sideline distraction tactic! For how does that one know that no one knows that, this and the other thing? Why is it that that some refuses to accept the idea that only what be right ideas ought be voiced and maintained. In a different conversation I mentioned that making a mistake is not wrong what is wrong is keeping it and recreating it... in simple terms recognize mistakes and correct them and take appropriate actions to mitigate and curtail such happenings... whilst seeking to make correct right things... keep in mind that the rules of the road are meant to prevent accidental collisions, settle disputes and facilitated the flows involved... whilst guiding individuals to act in certain particular ways... though often these are used for a whole different purposes to control and extort individuals ... 

the issue of group provisions also implies individual responsibilities and duties and a host of other matters... and in some cases obfuscate the truth of the matter... that may involve charlatanic bureaucratic enabled individual extortionists thugs who do not want the better visionary individually empowered appropriate enactors to happen. Look if you can choose between a good thing and a bad thing and it will cost you much less and give you much more value and felicity it's logical and reasonable to pick a good thing... and not to pick a bad thing... unless of course the picking involve what to get rid off and what to keep then picking a bad thing so as to keep and maintain only the good things be the better course of action. 

The main issue is that we do not actually need rules when individuals act-accordingly to how individuals ought to act... individuals just need to recognize and act-accordingly to how each better act in said situation... the thing is not that individuals have a hard time determining what is right (what is the highway) the thing is that often individuals do not desire nor want to pursue such a way of their own free will... given what they think/feel/do... because they are under the influence of that or this not so good option rather than under the influence of the better thing to do... which involves an infinite of wonderful appropriate and good options...

Like · Reply · 1 hr

 

1) Is humanity 'ready' for such a global, unified system;  M Ichael Josefowicz Thor Mann 
Not yet overall. There are more and more pockets to the appropriate mindsets.

What at we do know is that real time global connections will continue to grow more robust. Transparency is an inevitable result of real time communication and makes global events things that affect people's emotions.
Thor Mann Some provocative answers, for discussion: 
Ad 1) There are ample indications for the view that humanity is not ready for the adoption of a 'new' global system yet;
 

That could be taken to imply that you think such a system should eventually be adopted?

 

MJ: Yes.

 

There are arguments for some global agreements but less for the entire 'unified' aspect. Can this distinction be put in clearer terms to avoid continued misunderstanding?

 

MJ: The underlying dynamic are the internal contradictions of capitalism and how it relates to the newly visible affect of humans on the biosphere.  Just as the Protestant Ethic accompanied the rise of Capitalism 1.0. A different more wholistic ethics is accompanying Capitalism 2.0.

 

agreeing to let everybody travel where they want -- affirming individual rights and pursuits -- but use the collective roadways and not drive through folks' yards 

 

MJ: Capitalism needs legal constraints as well as individual choice.

(1) You write: humanity is not 'yet' ready for a global unified system. That could be taken to imply that you think such a system should eventually be adopted? There seems to be some uneasiness about the very concept -- David's concern, for example. There are arguments for some global agreements but less for the entire 'unified' aspect. Can this distinction be put in clearer terms to avoid continued misunderstanding? The principle being something like agreeing to let everybody travel where they want -- affirming individual rights and pursuits -- but use the collective roadways and not drive through folks' yards and tomato patches, arguably a very 'global' agreement that does not easily emerge from the good folks tending the tomatoes? (Though private property is an issue some see as a problem needing new global agreements…)
2) If so, how should we go about achieving it?  The underlying economic dynamics are an uber trend. What we can do is do what we can to engage with real life projects and make daily decisions in the context of the new reality that is emerging.  Ad 2) There are too many different, and often just too vague views about how such a global system could be brought to common acceptance and implementation; 

so nicely profiting from wars to being tempted to nudge politicians into starting some

 

MJ: In the Empire of Cotton he makes an important distinction between war capitalism and industrial capitalism. There has always been a contradiction between national elites.

 

Empire of Cotton: A Global History: Sven Beckert:  http://amzn.to/1ObgeNN

The efforts of private enterprise (including those expecting to so nicely profiting from wars to being tempted to nudge politicians into starting some) being another (uber? what happened to 'mega'?) trend emerging from an adaptive complex system -- but looking not just a bit worrisome? 
3) Do we really know enough yet about how such a global system might or should be organized?  It is the characteristic of a complex adaptive system that we cannot visualize the details today. But we can say there are many data points. I think read somewhere that there over a million groups working with the right mindsets. Now they are connecting to each other the internet, smart phones. The Climate Change conference in the EU is nothing something I would have predicted. The Pope's statements is another data point.    

MJ: Every technology is a two edged sword. It will depend on political and economic development. The American elites made a decision to give the air waves to private business. In the 1980's the Fairness Doctrine was changed. Cable news is one result. 

 

Fairness Doctrine http://bit.ly/24ufLzm

(3) I agree there are encouraging signs. But just the technological possibilities -- internet, smartphones, social media -- are not guaranteeing constructive connections. The amazing technological innovation of the radio soon led to a confusing megababble, and allocation to frequencies soon had to be rigorously regulated, resulting in much annoying talk radio full of even more annoying advertisement -- and never a single ad for lutefisk, by Abbé Boulah's drooping mustache! Private enterprise murdoched that system good, did it? So while I do approve of working on individual projects, trying out new ideas, that issue still needs discussion. On a better argument roadway… 
4) If not, (that is, the answers to 1,2,3 are still unsatisfactory) what appropriate strategies to develop and pursue?   Ad 3) Given humanity's experience with only a few such systems with ambitions of global acceptance, none of which seem to have been that successful (as evidenced by the very clamor for a new system), and some fundamental and yet unresolved dilemmas even of aspects that are widely seen as desirable parts of the new system, the overwhelming impression is that 'we' do NOT know enough about how such a global system ought to be organized;   

conclude that the design of a better discourse system might be a good thing to start working on?

 

MJ: Yes! My only difference is that we can help by riding and smoothing the way for Mega Trends.

(4) As I mentioned briefly before, the answers to the previous questions may be considered unsatisfactory from the point of view of enlisting support for the new global unified system. In fact, I am beginning to lean farther away from the concept the more I study it. But I accept the need for some global agreements. The prospects for either implementation of whatever global unified system might emerge, or what the modest global agreements should be that could ensure the opportunity for many diverse 'individual' initiatives while avoiding traffic jams and mass collisions, are needing much discussion and work, as far as I can see; meaning I'm not sufficiently satisfied to jump on either bandwagon and even consider those who do with some concern… I remain open to the possibility that this could just be because I haven't gotten the messages right yet, because of all the static in the communication system. (And my own limitations, of course) And conclude that the design of a better discourse system might be a good thing to start working on?
 
 

Ad 4) Given the inadequate answers to the previous 3 questions, one plausible strategy would be to begin by 

a) establishing a coherent framework for a global discourse of research and development, analysis and evaluation of alternative 'new system' design proposals; 
b) encourage and active support of actual (small, local) initiatives for a diverse set of 'alternative system' experiments ('innovation zones'), including approaches based on different (not necessarily compatible) assumptions; but 
c) develop a 'minimal' set of agreements for non-interference and coexistence among those different experiments, with 
d) a system of provisions for adherence to those agreements (in lieu of traditional 'sanctions' that must be 'enforced' by a larger and more powerful 'enforcement' agency, (a tradition widely seen as part of the problem); and 
e) provisions for the systematic monitoring and evaluation of the experiences, successes and failures of those experiments. 
For discussion.

Like · Reply · April 29 at 11:02pm · Edited

 

Meredith Bricken Mills When we learn the lesson of the current system, we'll be ready for a new one? (Compassion)

Like · Reply ·  1 · 21 hrs

Thor Mann

 

Thor Mann When we learn the lesson --- I agree, it's a different way of putting it. What is the lesson, how will we come to learn it? And agree that we have indeed learned it, as well as what the new system should be?

Like · Reply ·  1 · 14 hrs

Esteban Trev

 

Continued at the Fork

 

Esteban Trev by what each does reflect in their thoughts/feeling/behaaviours

 
Peter Jones Thor, I believe we need to address the following:

1) Religious excerpts taking about smiting the enemy
2) Highlighting many religions that talk about loving thy enemy

Only when we can unite around similarities, and stop fighting over differences, can we all truly make consistent and transformative progress.
 

Thor Mann Peter,
You are right of course. Those are among the topics that discourse should address; it seems that currently, the very possibility of talking about similarities and differences without resorting to 'smiting' is severely curtailed, to say the least. One first 'agreement' would be one of agreeing to postpone the 'smiting' pending adequate efforts of mutual exploration of similarities and differences, explanation and attempts at conversion. With the argument that perhaps the respective deity might see more merit in converting an infidel than in killing him (or getting killed), even though it may take some time and demonstration of the superior value of one's religion... My point is that the discussion might be more productive if we could explore the issues separately -- the design and structure of the discourse platform as one 'thread' or identifiable stream within a thread, the needed agreements as another, and then the various topics to be discussed (such as the ones I tried to examine in my paper about 'a Dirty Dozen Worldwide Wicked Problems). I am working on a 'map' that shows and identifies the issues and their relationships for overview and connection but -- I suggest -- allows the contributions to each to be dealt with in a perhaps more orderly fashion.

Like · Reply ·  1 · Yesterday at 9:27am

Esteban Trev

 

 

 

Esteban Trev Thor Mann know and understand that the intolerant demand of the tolerant to tolerate their intolerance whilst remaining intolerant to tolerating tolerance... in other words them inciting tugs and bullies fighters want to pick a fight irrespective of being right or wrong and irrespective of winning or losing the points for they seek to sell violence and guns and others nefastus ways... we can see this playing out in the equality movements of minorities who demand to be recognized as a minority... kind of curious... how some discriminate and fight against discrimination whilst violently opposed to eliminating the distinctions that separate them ... for example woman equal rights movements ought be framed as individual equal rights movements... not as a woman's movement ... the same about other movements... if you want no discrimination towards a group to not discriminate and establish that group as an independent community... many religions talk about love for everyone... and warn about hate and the dark side of the force... and to remain on the light side of the force... about believers and infidels about the righteous and the unrighteous and about loving the enemy (though this isn't about the enemy it is about loving)... the challenge of logically dialoging with the delusional involves engaging them in a logical fashion within their delusional ways and getting them to embrace a better clearer logic... this involves shifting from someone's ways to the ways of somebody who happens to hold and maintain the right ways...

Like · Reply ·  1 · 3 hrs

 
 

Esteban Trev Thor Mann I perceive a deeper issue to ponder here... why the push towards the group ... say rather than towards the individual willful pursue of the appropriate course of action... and/or/with a combination of the previous two ways... 

what if the individual is not yet ready for the great next 'new' system? why for example focus on conflicts and crises facing humanity rather than the opportunities and possibilities at the door? Why are so many individuals working to persuade other individuals to embrace the social organization rather than working to empower the individual righteous voices... It's like I was saying to someone yesterday if we are in an interchange between doing what I want and what you want we might never resolve the matter... whilst if we are in an interchange between doing what someone wants and what be the rule of law it seems a bit different... what most individuals often fail to realize is that the rule of law be established by some individual decrees made by individuals who claim now this is how everyone will behave... in line with what they think/feel/hold proclaim...

Like · Reply ·  1 · 19 hrs

 

Fork to Subthread

 

 

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.