Started at FB https://www.facebook.com/groups/774241602654986/
Continued at Fork to Subthread Thor Dialog
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 . . .
That change takes place at the level of the individual interaction and global rules will change in response. |
||
|
|
Nora Bateson In the midst of all the intellectual material... There is a dire need for humor.
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... |
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)? "
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?
M Ichael Josefowicz could you repeat the positive stance? I don't see it.
|
Esteban Trev Thor Mann I am going to respond out here to facilitate the flow of comments...
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.
|
|
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 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)
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?
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, Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 9:27am
|
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... |
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...
|