NCN Chat 3 Dec 95
Making the World Work for Everybody

<Space> Making the world work for everybody...

*** shardmind is now known as Del

<ffunch> yes, we'll just wait a few minutes and see who else shows up

<Space> I just got a message on the Cooperative Business list about starting a
+political party to support cooperative enterprises

<ffunch> How about a party that refuses to take sides, but always works for the whole

<ffunch> But yes, that would be nice.

<Space> It seems that so much of politics is oriented towards serving special
+interests, I think it would be refreshing to focus on cooperation.

<Space> Working for consensus

<ffunch> Very much so.

<Space> What is best for everyone

<ffunch> Time might soon be right for that

<Space> Of course, I don't like parties getting special treatment by
+government; they should all be equal in terms of government policies and
+programs

<ffunch> People are getting tired of politicians just defending agendas

<Del> Do you think the new Perot party will do it?

<ffunch> Might

<Space> Perot doesn't know how to party

<Del> Suppose we got the right people leading it.

<ffunch> He does, however, know how to position himself as just being practical,
+trying to make things work.

<ffunch> The old parties can't quite get to look like they're trying to honestly make
+things work.

<Del> What if, Newt ran in the Reformed party?

<ffunch> What is the Reformed party?

<Space> Perhaps the Internet and electronic communications have made parties a
+thing of the past; people can now communicate directly (and vote directly)

<Del> Perot's

<ffunch> Oh, right.

<ffunch> Or, Clinton and Newt ran together

<ffunch> Parties are old civ

<Space> We need to form consensus on what kind of world we want to create,
+including government, business, and the economy.

<ffunch> We'll all party together in the future

<Del> Perhaps, (the internet), but still there is not enough structure to
+break through the old paradigms.

<Space> Rather than resisting the old, let's embrace the NEW!

<ffunch> Work together, but allow each other to be different

<Space> YES

<ffunch> Anyway, let's get officially started, if we aren't already.

<ffunch> Making the world work for everybody

<Del> We need more people here today.

<Space> I want to see government focus on ENCOURAGING the right actions rather
+than PUNISHING the wrong actions.  How can we reward each other for right
+action?

<ffunch> Does the world have to work for everybody?

<Del> Right action? Who detrmines rightness?

<ffunch> Rewarding each other for right actions might indeed have something to do
+with it. Rightness based on personal subjective judgement.

<Space> We do.  In harmony with nature.

<ffunch> There is no one right action.

<Del> Space, How do we do that.

<ffunch> A voting scheme where we can vote on each other, or give each other
+acknowledgements when we do somethign somebody else thinks is good.

<Space> That is the doctrine of relativism, Flemming.  It is defeatist and
+hopeless.  There MUST be an absolutely right perspective in order to
+transcend relativism.

<ffunch> What is absolutely right other than working for the whole, which is a
+generality.

<ffunch> No specific action or idea is right for everybody. Except for the idea that
+everybody has the right to a different preference.

<Space> It is the quest for the "absolute right" that leads us towards unity.

<Del> OK, we all might recognize rightness, but how do we KNOW that we all
+recognize it?

<Space> Slavery is wrong.  Absolutely.  Because it denies human spirit free
+expression.

<ffunch> Yes, the quest. But nothing we can say right now constitutes such a right.

<Space> I just said it.

<ffunch> Unless somebody chooses slavery freely. And they have the right to leave
+whenever they want.

<Space> Then it is not slavery, by denfition.

<ffunch> I think the key thing is freedom of choice.

<Space> definition

<Space> Honoring the divine within is RIGHT!

<ffunch> Nobody has a right to take away other people's choices.

<Space> There you have just said an absolute.

<ffunch> Yes, acting from one's own inner inspiration and sense of truth is right.
+But it is not one idea that we can set down in stone.

<Space> Resonance is the key to righteousness.

<ffunch> Rightness is a fluid things. It depends on the circumstances and what one is
+inspired to do.

<Space> You are thinking in the control paradigm, Flemming.  Give it up.  The
+control paradim is endless trouble...

<Del> How about the criminal masses? What do they do?

<ffunch> What do you mean?

<ffunch> Control paradigm, Steve?

<Space> "set it in stone" is a control paradigm concept.  We don't need to
+control people; we need to ALLOW people free expression.

<ffunch> Criminal masses might not be in touch with their own sense of rightness.
+They need help to reach it.

<ffunch> That's what I'm saying, Steve. You were talking about what was absolutely
+right. And I'm saying, you have no right to tell people that.

<Del> They don't want help.

<ffunch> We need to allow, as you say.

<Space> As soon as you attempt to STOP someone from taking a specific action,
+even if it is just to stop them from making you a slave, you have entered the
+control paradigm and lost cooperation. You also lose the "honoring the
+divine" perspective.

<ffunch> People not wanting help might indeed be a problem. We need to invent systems
+that encourage people to connect up with their own creativity and sense of
+integrity inside.

<Space> Allowing the positive is the way...

<Space> Yes.  That is ABSOLUTELY correct, Flemming.

<Del> Then what are the barriers we face? Can't we already allow the right
+way?

<ffunch> Steve, refusing to be the subject of a certain action doesn't necessarily
+mean trying to stop it.

<ffunch> A lot of the solution is in setting things free that are otherwise being
+kept tightly controlled, censored or managed, for no particularly good
+reason.

<Space> Yes, we can do it now by releasing all resistance (hatred) to what we
+wish to achieve.   We are ONE MIND, each of us complete in him/herself.

<ffunch> A lot of the problems of old civ come from resistance.

<Del> So we incent to change?

<ffunch> Trying to oppose something we don't like, rather than just stepping out of
+the way and concentrating on what we would want.

<Space> Divide and conquer.  It is the old way.  Create resistance (hatred)
+and you will be able to control the people (if you believe in control).

<Space> Exactly.  Let us focus on what we want; the clear vision with resolve
+is more powerful than a thousand man army.  Witness Ghandi.

<ffunch> I think the "masses" are best dealt with by simply putting some systems
+there that inspire certain kinds of behavior. Not by trying to influence them
+directly.

<Space> Create opportunity for higher consciousness and reward right behavior.

<Del> The systems are there. Improvements will come with use.

<ffunch> PArt of the problem with old civ is treating people like "the masses",
+trying to push one solution on everybody.

<Space> Each of us needs to take personal responsibility for this.

<ffunch> People need to choose freely, but we can leave certain systems there that
+might guide it a little bit.

<Space> Yes.  No pushing.  Just embracing the positive.  No time for force of
+resistance, just force of attraction.

<Space> Love the hatred.

<Del> Force of attraction. I like that a lot.

<Space> Thanks.  I just came up with it.

<ffunch> No agency can know what is going to be good for everybody. But people with
+vision can put some markers down that others can be guided by, if they choose
+to be.

<Del> What is the force af attraction to new civ?

<Del> Rightness?

<ffunch> We put up visions and schemes and inspiration. But nobody's forced to do it
+any of the ways we propose.

<Space> Vision is a guide to consciousness.   Watch the "markers" idea though,
+because you may be tempted to enforce those markers later on and then you are
+back in the same old trap.

<ffunch> right

<ffunch> Nobody's vision is the right one.

<ffunch> We're more like artists painting pictures. Some people might be inspired by
+certain pictures, other's won't.

<Space> A better question would be "What reality do we wish to attract?"  Then
+NCN can proceed to word for that reality.  We are already on track with the
+vision statements, I think.

<Del> I don't want people to tell me what is right, but I could learn more
+about rightness..

<Space> Flemming:  You are doing it again.  Relativism is negative. It tells
+you what you CAN'T do, rather than what you CAN do.  Please.

<ffunch> We need to learn that rightness is from inside. But we might sometimes need
+hints from the outside.

<ffunch> What do you mean, Steve?

<Space> Watch your words, Del.  "Don't want" is also negative...resisting...

<Space> Tell us what you want.  Only have time for what you want.

<Space> Righteness comes from inside AND outside.

<ffunch> I don't get your relativism thing, Steve.

<Space> Harmony of the two

<Del> I was not speaking specifically about me, but as the world might see new
+civ.

<Space> When you say that "it is all up to the individual" you RESIST the
+notion of a higher truth, something that is true regardless what ANYONE
+believes.

<Del> People may not listen to others telling them what is right, but they may
+listen to rightness and the actions of rightness.

<Space> By resisting you blind yourself to the value of the quest for a h
+igher truth.  It is that quest which brings us together...to unity.

<ffunch> But, Steve, that is what people get from the inside, if they look deeply
+enough. Which is the same as the ultimate outside.

<Space> It's not this or that but this AND that.  You are right, providing you
+do not deny the possibility of getting from the outside as well.

<ffunch> The highere truth you are referring to is not a human kind of truth you can
+express in a statement. It is the inherent unity in everything.

<ffunch> Each person relates to the inherent unity in a completely unique way.

<Del> The implacate order of things.

<ffunch> We're all unique, but unified.

<Space> You just did another "no can do" flemming.  Think about it.  You told
+me what I "CAN'T" express...how arrogant and WRONG for you to do that.  We
+must all be SEEKING rather than resisting the truth.

<ffunch> You told me what I couldn't do, Steve. I was defending my view.

<Space> I did not tell you what you COULDN'T do, but rather what you SHOULDN'T
+do.  You can do it if you want, but it is taking us in the wrong
+direction...away from unity.

<ffunch> Are you the Authority on that?

<Space> Is that a trick question
<smile>?

<ffunch> YEs. I think all of our views count.

<Space> Thank you. We are in unity.

<ffunch> Nobody has THE right answer. If we add up all of our answers we could say we
+have some kind of absolute rightness. But that can't be expressed.

<Del> Can't it?

<Del> Why not?

<Space> You just did it again Flemming.  No CAN DO is an arrogant and wasteful
+thing to do.  I don't have time for it.

<ffunch> Well, we could give some meaningful philosophical statements about it, but
+they aren't quite it.

<Space> What reality do we wish to create to "make the world work for
+everybody?"

<ffunch> You really have a think about CAN'T DO, Stever. You tell me every time that
+I can't say that.

<Space> I wish to create an alternate economic system that embraces abundance
+and cooperation.

<ffunch> You're doing what you are telling me not to do, Steve.

<Del> I think Steve would like you to ask more questions (inquire) vs make
+statements (advocate).

<ffunch> Guess so.

<Space> I didn't say you CAN'T do it; just that I think it is wrong for you to
+do it.

<Space> Correct, Del.

<ffunch> I don't think you particularly have the authority to tell me what it is
+wrong for me to think, Steve.

<Space> I don't need any special authority to speak the truth, Flemming.

<ffunch> Restisting that people say CAN'T DO isn't necessarily productive. In my
+opinion.

<ffunch> But I agree, CAN DO is more generally useful.

<Space> Let's be productive then, ok?

<ffunch> That's why we are here.

<Space> What's the focus of this chat?

<ffunch> Making the world work for everybody

<Space> How can we do that?

<ffunch> By not enforcing one scheme on everybody

<Del> Steve, "an alternatate economomic system'? explain please.

<Space> The existing economic system is premised on fear, scarcity, greed and
+the essential "badness" of human nature.  We need one that embraces the
+positive qualities of Human nature.

<ffunch> Agreed

<Space> Like honesty, integrity, trust and honor.

<ffunch> Reward what people find of value

<Space> YES!

<ffunch> Reward doing something for the whole.

<Space> Bring people into the light of goodness, rather than the fear of
+badness. (is this correct english?)

<Del> Gee, I am doing that at my job and in my life today. Seems as though we
+don't have enough people doing it.

<ffunch> Yes, base any schemes on the inherent goodness inside everybody.

<Space> Please share details, Del.

<Del> We are approaching business with the values we offer and with
+relationships as the most useful way to work.

<Del> Success is far away, because we don't have enough other people like that
+to build relationships with.

<ffunch> If enough people do that in their immediate environemnts, it would make a
+big difference cummulatively.

<Space> Relationship building?

<Del> Just like this chat.

<Space> yes.

<Del> I use chat at work. I use it between companies.

<ffunch> If everybody just worked on making things better, and refrained from
+supporting activities that made things work, we would get somewhere.

<Del> I use it at home with my family who does not live near me.

<Space> I look at the alternate economic system I spoke of as primarily a
+person-to-person networking system.

<Del> I work on relationships.

<Space> It's the relationships we build that are our true wealth, I think.

<Del> Absloulty.

<ffunch> Relationships is to a large degree what will make the world work.

<Space> Bless you, Del.

<Space> We are in unity.

<Del> The CEO of a major company, the Senator, are all just people.

<ffunch> Impersonal relations are a hallmark of old civ.

<Del> I need to KNOW who I deal with.

<Del> Knowing is a relationsip attribute.

<Space> I believe everyone is doing "the best they can" with the consciousness
+they currently have.  Our mission needs to be to raise awareness about
+options...different ways of being.

<ffunch> How can we get to know better who we are dealing with?

<Del> Listen to them.

<ffunch> Right. Everybody's doing the best they know. But they might be missing
+options.

<Space> Good question.   By asking questions and paying attention we can know
+each other better.

<Space> Yes, Listen.

<Del> Listen to yourselves.

<ffunch> Ask people what they want.

<Del> Know yourselves and then know others

<Space> Pay attention to ALL things.

<ffunch> The "masses" are frustrated that they aren't being asked what they actually
+want.

<Space> Everything and everybody matters.

<Del> Are they waiting for someone to ask them?

<Del> Why?

<ffunch> Does the world have to work the same for everybody?

<Del> Why don't they ask themsleves?

<ffunch> I think many people ARE waiting for somebody to ask them.

<Space> Flemming.  I respectfully request that you stop using the term
+"MASSES" because it implies a "us vs them" perspective which is not helpful
+in my opinion.  We are all ONE!

<Space> It's all us.

<ffunch> Show them that THEY matter.

<Space> WE matter.

<Del> Show others.

<Del> Demonstrate.

<ffunch> Yes, Steve, but my point is the alienation in regarding people as "masses".
+That is what I'd like to get beyond.

<ffunch> Old civ deals with masses. New civ deals with individuals that all matter.

<Del> Demonstrate by asking and listening to us.

<Del> Economincs based on mutulality?

<ffunch> We need to help people out of being "masses" into being unique individuals
+that have a say.

<Del> I give you what you need for things I need?

<ffunch> Rather, we cooperate on creating something we both want.

<Del> Yes.

<ffunch> Not me versus you, but US together.

<Del> I add my vlaue to the creation process.

<Del> You add yours.

<Del> We create.

<ffunch> Together we can accomplish more than divided.

<Del> The premise behind virtual organizations.

<ffunch> No government or agency will do it for us en masse. We together can make the
+world work.

<ffunch> A society of virtual organizations.

<ffunch> Everybody deserves personal, meaningful relations.

<Del> A niotion of virtual organizations as a way of doing things.

<ffunch> Probably why young people join gangs. That is more meaningful than just
+being a nobody.
*** Signoff: Space (irc1.portal.com irc.uiuc.edu)

<Del> It is how we do it not what we do. (VOs)

<Del> He must have timed out.

<ffunch> Right. How we relate, the process we go through.

<ffunch> Probably. Or I said something wrong, I don't know.

<Del> I suspect he will return.

<ffunch> How, then, do we involve more people in processes of relationship and
+meaningful interaction?

<Del> By living it that way. I don't know how to just lay it all out. People
+need to learn it from our actions.

<ffunch> General networking. Surveys of what people want.

<ffunch> YEs, no general scheme will do it for everybody.

<ffunch> By being a good example is probably most effective.

<Del> It is simply the way we do things. People who want to learn will.

<ffunch> Create virtual organization that work. Relationships that are fruitful.

<Del> We include them. We relate with them. We ask questions.

<ffunch> Involve more people.

<Del> We encourage. We solicit.

<Del> We are listeners.

<Del> We take meaningful actions.

<Del> We work for all of us.

<ffunch> Projects like World Knowledge Net and NCN are probably helpful in this.

<Del> We want others to do so to, because we need thier special values.

<Del> Of course.

<Del> If it is right, it will grow.

<ffunch> We need what others have to offer. We won't just tell them how to do things.

<ffunch> Spontaneous interaction, sponteneous virtual organizations.

<Del> Humans need to bring value. I demonstrate how I do it in hopes others
+will bring thiers

<ffunch> Removing the blocks to meaningful spontaneous interactions.

<Del> Or, be there when the barriers are removed.

<Del> Leading the way.

<Del> It may take a lot of people to remove the barriers of resistance.

<ffunch> So, Making the World Work is a way of relating, I suppose. The way we
+interact with each other. More than it is any particular technological
+scheme.

<Del> Patience and understanding are needed by leaders.

<ffunch> Openness, flexibility.

<Del> Leaders must lead. You can't ;ead a parade from the rear.

<ffunch> Guiding the ship, providing visions, but not enforcing them.

<Del> Openess and flexibility to allow others to develop openess and
+flexibility.

<ffunch> Leading, but not forcefully controlling.

<ffunch> Coordination, not giving orders.

<Del> A leader KNOWS people are following without having to look back all the
+time.

<ffunch> Right. And people will follow a good leader by their own accord.

<ffunch> If somebody has to be forced to follow, it is a bad leader.

<Del> However, one must not get out of sight or there will be no leader.

<ffunch> Leader has to be visible and has to have clear visions and direction.

<Del> Keeping a step ahead, not miles ahead.

<ffunch> Being in rapport with the group.

<Del> That means that you must think strategically and act tactically.

<ffunch> Synthesizing what the group is about.

<ffunch> Right.

<ffunch> Leader addresses the big picture, but pays attention to the actual
+circumstances.

<Del> Taking the path that leads over the mountain

<ffunch> How can we communicate the idea of making the world work?

<ffunch> Does the idea need to be sold to people?

<Del> By recognizing those that are, then making abig deal of it.

<ffunch> Right. Show to others who is doing something that works.

<ffunch> Display the good examples.

<Del> Obviate the obvious.

<Del> What is obvious to me is learned by others.

<ffunch> Most people would choose joyful, productive relationships that make things
+better, if they at all see a choice.

<Del> Help them by making it even more obvious.

<ffunch> Better ways of showing what is actually going on, and who's making a
+difference.

<Del> Yes, but some are very focused on making money.

<ffunch> Guess it somehow has to be integrated.

<ffunch> Would be nice if it were most profitable to do what makes the world work
+better.

<ffunch> In the big picture, that IS the most profitable. Maybe we can find better
+ways of showing it.

<Del> Flesh eating, bone crunching salemen, are not interested today in making
+relationships work unless there is big buck int there for them.

<ffunch> But people are less interested in hard sales. I think people are beginning
+to want more substance.

<Del> That is why Steve wants a new econmic system.

<ffunch> If the old deceptive sales techniques aren't working any longer, the sellers
+would have to pay attention to what people really want.

<Del> The Internet is doing that for us.

<ffunch> I think the old economic system has a lot to do with keeping things the old
+way.

<Del> Yes.

<ffunch> I think it very important to work on some new ways of relating economically
+with each other.

<Del> As my Dad used to say. Money is the root of all evil.

<ffunch> We might configure a kind of money that would inherently encourage working
+for the whole and making things better.

<Del> He could be wrong.

<Del> I would like to think on that some more. I am not so sure about money.

<Del> Maybe there is some other way to reach rightness with the planet.

<ffunch> People are so focused on money, that maybe if we provided a new kind of
+money that preserved the benefits, but had new advantages, that might make
+things change really quickly.

<Del> Currency of the heart?

<ffunch> Most people are very focused on surviving on making a living. We need some
+kind of new scheme to help with that in a more wholistic way.

<ffunch> Yes, a currency with built-in integrity.

<Del> (Heartnotes) vs (Banknotes). I'll be there for you -- notes.

<ffunch> Anyway, that takes some thought. I don't have the scheme yet.

<ffunch> Yes, currency demonstrating trust and value, not just that something is
+owed.

<ffunch> I give you a Heartnote if I like what you're doing or I trust you.

<Del> "I'LL do this for you if you'll do that for me."

<Del> My value and your value working together to do something better.

<ffunch> Currency needs to get out of the control of monopolies. Must be something WE
+can create.

<ffunch> Yes.

<ffunch> Anyway, I think that's about enough for a chat.

<Del> Sound like the old barter system updated to run on the Internet.

<Del> Yep.

<Del> Need more people.

<ffunch> YEs, the Internet opens some new possibilities.

<Del> Thanks for shareing

<ffunch> THink the next chat will be in 2 weeks.

<Del> OK

<ffunch> Good to have you here.

<ffunch> Thanks for the interaction.

<ffunch> Talk to you later.