|
|
 12 Jul 2007 @ 22:53, by ming. Systems Thinking
Emergence is one of my most favorite subjects. The one I'd maybe most like to figure out. What makes things emerge? Good stuff. Seemingly out of nothing. Here's a definition by Jeffrey Goldstein, from Wikipedia. It is: the arising of novel and coherent structures, patterns and properties during the process of self-organization in complex systems. And some common characteristics: (1) radical novelty (features not previously observed in systems);
(2) coherence or correlation (meaning integrated wholes that maintain themselves over some period of time);
(3) A global or macro "level" (i.e. there is some property of "wholeness");
(4) it is the product of a dynamical process (it evolves); and
(5) it is "ostensive" - it can be perceived. Excelleeent! More of that, please.
Monday I was taking part in an online discussion organized by Extreme Democracy, around emergence in relation to politics. Sort of poking around in the thought of whether a better and more direct democracy possibly might emerge from the bottom and up. I can't seem to locate a transcript, so I can't quote all the good points.
One of the starting points was Two ways to emerge, and how to tell the difference between them (pdf) by Steven Johnson.
The two types he's talking about, he calls "Clustering" and "Coping". Those aren't very good choices of words, but it is a good observation that there are different kinds.
Clustering would be where a bunch of somethings get together and do the same thing. Like slime mold. Or a flash mob, or other group phenomena where large numbers of people suddenly get excited about one thing or another, and they all show up at the same time, or they do the same thing.
Coping would be where a bunch of individuals get together, and they don't just do one simple thing, but they form a more complex organization. Like an ant hill. The ants specialize, they take on different roles, they solve problems, they change their behavior if necessary, etc. Without anybody handing out the orders.
It is a lot easier to simply get a large number of people together, or to get them together for one well-defined purpose, than it is to get large numbers of people to self-organize towards solving unknown problems.
Somebody suggested the Howard Dean presidential campaign as an example of a bottom-up emergence of the clustering kind. It was a successful attempt of getting a lot of people together in being excited about one thing, organizing their own local meetings to futher it, etc. But it only worked as long as the main point was being excited about Dean being a leading candidate, and as long as things went well. The moment people started being dissatisfied about something, or they wanted to change direction, there was no vehicle for that, and it fell apart rather quickly. It wasn't the Coping kind of emergence. I don't think it really was emergence at all. That a political candidate gets a lot of grass-roots support might be interesting, but it isn't something that emerged from the grass-roots, or it would have been the assembled crowds that told him what to say, rather than him telling them what to be excited about.
A lot of things that might be given as examples of bottom-up self-organization and emergence probably aren't. Or they're very weak examples. If the date and time of the Superbowl broadcast is announced, and millions of people organize parties around it in front of bigscreen TVs, is that self-organization? Sure, it inspires some self-organization, but it is based on something you're provided from the top down. If some big movie or music star is very popular, and their fans organize fan clubs and websites and online forums, is that self-organization? Yes, it is, on a local level, but it isn't a whole lot of emergence. It is a clustering effect based on stimuli provided from a central source, a movie, an album, a TV show, etc.
If a political candidate hears that through the internet one can easily launch thousands of self-replicating self-organizing local support groups, and forums and meetings, etc, he'll say "great!" Saves a lot of advertising dollars. He'll love it exactly until the point where that network of people starts disagreeing with him, wanting him to do something different from what he had in mind. Which is what would happen if it really were some kind of emerging self-organizing democracy. Candidates with a program don't go well together with real bottom-up democracy. Nobody's really seen such a democracy, so that probably isn't entirely obvious.
Anyway, it of course isn't enough to get a whole lot of people together. That's the clustering thing. If one promotes and organizes it well, and one hits the right nerve, one might get 100s of thousands of angry people to show up at the same time and express themselves. But that doesn't necessarily add up to doing something in any organized fashion. For large numbers of people to do something complex together requires a complex organization. The traditional way of doing that is the top-down way. Somebody's in charge, somebody sets the tone, inspires everybody, sets goals, hands out jobs. They delegate some of their power to others, and so forth. It works, but it creates dumb, inflexible, slow organizations.
We sense that something better is becoming available. The networked world. We're all more and more connected, and the world is moving faster and faster, and obviously it is better if decision making is distributed to those who're most involved with whatever decisions need to be made about. So, many organizations are busy trying to develop more flat structures, more networks, more communities, more self-organization. But if we're talking business or government, there's still somebody in charge who largely decides what one should self-organize around.
The very hard problem is how stuff can actually emerge from the bottom and up, how one can self-organize around what emerges, and how that can scale to a bigger size.
Self-organization amongst people can work great in small groups. If your family is going to have a picnic, you'll probably all figure out how to contribute, without anybody having to be in charge. A few dozen people can maybe do that. But can thousands? Or millions?
Could the world possibly work without anybody being in charge? It is sort of a ridiculous idea to expect that a few people can be in charge of governing the world. Sooner or later it will be not just a little ridiculous, but it will become impossible, as the world moves faster and becomes more complex. Sooner or later the answer has to be that it is some kind of emergent self-organizing direct democracy. It isn't just some idealist notion. The alternatives will stop working sooner or later.
But nobody seems to know how, yet. Hopefully the answer will somehow emerge, and be a delightful surprise.
A couple of other excellent papers on the subject are: Emergent Democracy by Joi Ito, and The Second Superpower Rears Its Beautiful Head by James Moore. Both PDFs. More >
|
|
|
|
 29 Jun 2007 @ 22:39, by jhs. Systems Thinking
In order to shed some light on the plethora of options to win or lose in the rat-race (or life if you want), I mapped the various combinations of the be-do-have onto the Zousel graph of polarities (see Polar Dynamics 1). The result is pictured in the graph.
Example:
+Do & -Be (doing and not-being -> faking):
if you're doing a job as a dentist but you aren't a dentist, you're a fake, an impostor
More Expansions:
doing and being -> growth (more have)
not-doing and being -> unemployed
doing and not-being -> impostor
not-doing and not-being -> bum
having and doing -> winning
having and not-doing -> idle
not-having and doing -> losing
not-having and not-doing -> ruined
being and having -> wealthy
being and not-having -> daydreaming
not-being and having -> overwhelmed
not-being and not-having -> in despair
Result of Skipping 1 State
Assuming to:
be without having - debtor
do without being - impostor
have without doing - dependent
Conditions of Skipping 2 States
Assuming to:
be without doing - unemployed
do without having - slave
have without being - thief
Conclusions:
The WINNING states are characterized by POSITIVE attitudes along the direction of the BE-DO-HAVE triangle (counter-clockwise). ALL other combinations are failing. (Note: a stagnant condition is a losing condition because of the law of entropy, in other words, to maintain a stable condition there is always a supporting energy needed).
In addition to my last entry, one could specify that just 'Positive Thinking' while ignoring the above dependencies WILL result in a failure.
Likewise, following the rules above will result in success, regardless of 'Positive Thinking' or not. It is obvious that in order to kick-start the success cycle, the assumption of the POSSIBILITY of success must be present. In this sense, and only in this sense, 'Positive Thinking' will result in a positive outcome.
For example, 'dreaming of a red Porsche' (+H&-D-->disaster) doesn't help, but hyping up a 'you can do it!' attitude DOES help (+Be & +Do-->growth/success).
Special attention is due to the results of enslavery (+Do & -Have) and being a debtor (+Be & -Have) - the former arrives directly from the latter!!!). More >
|
|
|
|
18 Jun 2007 @ 15:59, by anandavala. Systems Thinking
Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.
Preview of a new e-book soon to be
released.
It's a system theoretic analysis of the ego and its role in the
cult of authoritarianism, which leads to tyranny. The analysis isn't
an intellectual exploration, instead it seeks to encourage a deep
understanding of the nature of events in our lives and in the world
and to spark up a discourse amongst progressive communities that can
lead to practical and effective strategies to resolve the growing
crisis in civilisation and to navigate the transition to a new and
more sustainable civilisation.
The Gaian-Ego Hypothesis
or
Systems
Analysis of Organisation,
Ego, Control and Authoritarianism
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of
evil to one who is striking at the root."
(Henry
David Thoreau)
"The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity"
[FR].
"Truth, in its complexity, cannot be advanced if the discourse
of intellectuals conforms to a self-reproducing closed loop of hidden
assumptions." [FR]
The purpose of this analysis is to step out of the loop of subtle
dogma and to expand the scope of potential discourse so that we may
better comprehend the complexity by discerning its underlying
pattern, thereby we may see through our errors and not merely repeat
them. This overall analysis is humbly offered to help fuel a communal
discussion that can bringing together the knowledge and expertise of
progressive minds into a coherent and effective discourse that can
peacefully resolve the crisis in civilisation.
The Situation
Most human expressions, activities and inventions first arise as
thoughts and are shared via communication, therefore civilisation can
be described as the outward manifestation of a communal understanding
or a resonance of minds or a memeplex [FR].
The breakdown of communal understanding lies at the heart of the
breakdown of this civilisation. The work of rebuilding communal
understanding must ultimately be the foundation of any effective
attempt to resolve the crisis. The cause of the breakdown is complex
but ultimately stems from the corruption of public discourse by
manipulative agendas and the remedy is for humanity to reclaim that
discourse and clarify the confusions thus creating a space for
rebuilding a communal understanding. "Speech is civilization
itself.... it is silence which isolates." [FR]
From this, greater awareness will arise and collectively we will know
how to act to resolve the crisis and put civilisation on a firm and
realistic foundation.
Whilst ever the dominant discourse is corrupt the voice of reason
is just noise in the background that cannot meaningfully penetrate
the discourse and bring sanity into the overall situation. There is
already a vast body of knowledge that provides detailed evidence and
deep analysis of the many problems but these have been accumulating
for decades, even centuries, and have had minimal overall impact.
Whilst these analyses are vital in the long term, at present they are
largely impotent because the dominant discourse cannot entertain the
simple logic and has no desire to act on it even when it can.
Furthermore analysing and exposing issues one at a time is a
reactionary strategy that creates an information overload that people
cannot properly digest because there is no coherent paradigm within
which to make sense of it all. What is required is a subtler strategy
that can eventually penetrate then wall of denial.
There are rapidly growing numbers of open minds and we have the
potential to form a diverse and integrated community that can create
a parallel discourse that weakens the corrupt discourse and shifts
the balance of power. But we need a way to manage the information
overload and integrate it into a coherent and compelling communal
understanding that forms the seed of a more humane and more
sustainable civilisation. More >
|
|
|
|
2 Jul 2006 @ 13:35, by ming. Systems Thinking
It is a well-known story, but can always bear being told again. Here's a quick summary a key turning point in Buckminster Fuller's life. From here, written by Amy C. Edmondson.The inventor of the geodesic dome—a structure light enough to be lifted by a helicopter yet strong enough to withstand hurricanes—achieved his eventual acclaim by never breaking a bargain he made with himself in 1927 as he teetered at the edge of suicide. A series of business failures, compounded with lingering grief over the death of his daughter five years earlier, had made Fuller increasingly despondent. Then he was fired from his job as president of a construction company he had founded with his father-in-law, and a second daughter was born. Overwhelmed by a sense of failure, he felt he must get himself out of the way, ensuring that relatives would take care of his wife and their baby.
He went to Lake Michigan, intending to swim out to his death. Then he was struck by what he called a vision, in which he saw that he didn’t have the right to do away with himself. “You do not belong to you, you belong to the universe,” he was later to explain; for all his mistakes, he was the custodian of a unique package of experiences that just might have some utility for mankind. He would trust the “anticipatory intellectual wisdom which we may call God” and allow himself to live, and he would never forget that he was a “throwaway.”
Thus began the fifty-six-year experiment of “guinea pig B”—for Bucky—in which “an average healthy human being” resolved to become a problem solver “on behalf of all humanity.” One can only imagine the reactions of family and friends when the thirty-twoyear-old Fuller announced this. He further determined to dispense forever with the idea of “earning a living,” which to him meant advantaging oneself at the expense of others; if he concentrated on doing what needed to be done, funding would take care of itself. He decided to devote himself, broadly, to the technology of “livingry,” as opposed to weaponry.
Fuller moved his wife, Anne, and infant daughter, Allegra, to a one-room apartment in a Chicago slum, withdrew completely from all friends and social contact, and vowed not to speak again until he really knew what he thought. And then he began to think. His virtual silence lasted for almost two years and was the beginning of what he one day called “a blind date with principle.” That is usually presented as sort of a "Wow, he's special!" kind of thing, like something crazy that one in a billion individuals might do, and it actually will work. Where Bucky's point was exactly that he wasn't all that special, but he just chose a different perspective: that of being of service to all of humanity. Which doesn't just necessarily mean that you become a monk, sitting around being nice, eating rice and beans, if somebody gives them to you. No, the point is the different perspective, of actually working on humanity's problems.
My reason for mentioning that is also personal, in that I notice that I personally tend to do better when I focus on crazy big global things than if I try to act normal and make a living. I'm not Buckminster Fuller, and I haven't considered jumping into Lake Michigan, and I'm not going to be quiet for two years. I simply notice that things tend to flow better for me in periods of time when I focus on bigger things, like the problems of humanity, and things flow worse when I try to do what I'm "supposed to do". You know, get a job, pay your taxes, plan your retirement, drive within the speed limit. I'm not very good at those things in either case, but they tend to sort themselves out better if there's something else that really is more important to me.
And I notice that recently, as I've tried to be more "normal", that isn't particularly working great for me. I'm not sure I know how. I don't even have much to say when I'm just being normal. So, just an observation that maybe I should think a bit bigger again.
Btw, the global climate might be more suited for that now than when Buckminster Fuller was around. You know, the Internet. It is a lot more feasible now for somebody to solve some little piece of what humanity needs, and communicate and distribute it to others easily, and more likely that they incidentally will be remunerated for it. The open source kind of thinking. Solve something that needs solving, solve it really well, and give it away, and most likely you'll indirectly see some kind of benefit from having done that. More >
|
|
|
|
 29 Jun 2006 @ 16:24, by jhs. Systems Thinking
The binary code of the Odu of Fa is a reflection (or better an abstraction) of the internal structure of proto-energy.
A more comprehensive model is viewing every proto energy of having the geometry of a double, or "star"-tetrahedron. Wikipedia seems critical of this name without offering a better one. The issue is confused by some claiming it to be the mythical 'Merkabah" of Melchizedek (Enoch?).
In any case, it appears to be close to the basic structure of any "thing", any manifestation within our Universe.
This observation finds support in the tensegrity model of Buckminster Fuller. For the record, the "Synergetics" discussion group of the early/mid nineties on the New Civilziation Network voted for the 4-dimensional "Mayan Time Star", a name originated by Steingrubner because of the close link to the theories of Jose Arguelles about the Mayan "Code of Tzolkin" which consists of 260 proto-energies.
I used a long, hot Brazilian night to make a steel model of the Star-tetrahedron for purposes of better visualization/meditation (see picture)... More >
|
|
|
|
20 Mar 2006 @ 21:09, by b. Systems Thinking
Since outlining a plan for a New Civ community funded by an operating gold mine I have observed that not many have visions for a new civilization. Or at least visions that they are willing to share. More >
|
|
|
|
 20 Mar 2006 @ 00:28, by ming. Systems Thinking
Andrius reminded me of a conversation we had on Key Concepts. The idea being that if one is clear on what one's key concept in life is, it is easier to align one's activities and stay focused. What we had arrived at at that time was that my key concept, what I'm seeking, is:Creative Intelligence Through Synergetic Diversity Along with that went an investigatory question, i.e. a major project, a major question one is seeking to answer. Mine became: What are the generative patterns that would allow the global brain to wire itself? That's a great reminder. So, first, about that key concept there... Most things I'm interested in have something to do with getting something useful out of diversity. Finding a mix of things that is synergetic, i.e. where the sum becomes more than the parts. An eco-system kind of thing, where different diverse parts somehow work together to make a bigger system work. Something generative happens. Smaller holons make a bigger holon. And this is in contrast to the kind of diversity where one mixes different things together and they just become a mix, or a confused mess. There are ways of mixing things together where something great happens that wouldn't be possible by the ingredients alone. And what is interesting to seek to create or discover is an intelligence. A smart system. If we're talking a group of people, it is collective intelligence. A group of people that together is smarter than the individuals in it. But it doesn't have to be a group, which is why I just termed it creative intelligence. Putting things together so that something new, better, creative and intelligent happens. Negative entropy. Creating life, rather than submitting to decay. Looking for signs of life.
And the investigatory question there... Looking for patterns, ways of arranging things, which foster self-organization. Preferably, ideally, hopefully patterns that make wonderfully positive things happen "by themselves", i.e. naturally, with little friction. Memes, contagion of ideas. Bucky Fuller's "Design Science Revolution". Design stuff that is compelling to use, without need for persuasion, which just happens to inspire more sustainable and harmonious patterns of behavior.
The global brain, well, we seem to really need it. As it is right now, humankind is a schizophrenic moron. Or manic-depressive, maybe. Sometimes brilliant and productive, mostly lethargic, largely criminally destructive. Despite that many members of the human race are well-meaning, knowledgeable and resourceful. We desperately need to be connected in a manner that is constructively complex, so as to awaken our collective intelligence. Maybe that is something we can do on the internet, maybe it is a different way of doing a few key things. It appears that none of us are smart enough to solve the puzzle. But we might be smart enough to discover patterns that allow something bigger to emerge. We might not be clever enough to know exactly how to do it, but we might know how to start something that triggers the emergence of a bigger level of intelligence. Patterns that promote self-organization and collective intelligence, even small scale, are a very likely leverage point. One ingredient is to know when to get out of the way, and let useful things happen.
Does any of that give me a title to put on my business card? Maybe not directly, but it is possible. Of course, any kind of organization could use some of that. The knowledge to arrange things a little differently so that good things happen more by themselves. And of course it would be ideal if I could say I have the answers to exactly how that is done. But we're talking about a quest, rather than an accomplished feat. A bit of knowledge might go a long way, though. More >
|
|
|
|
17 Nov 2005 @ 03:53, by shreepal. Systems Thinking
New Civilization, which may be able to resolve the irreconcilable differences of faiths, cultures, politics etc. plaguing our civilization – Old Civilization - ( irreconcilable differences or, still better, irreconcilable contradictions, which reminds one of W.F. Hegel’s Dialectics of Idea and of Karl Marx’s Dialectics of Matter - and of which we shall speak later), may dawn on our planet only if collective consciousness of mankind at the present juncture of her evolutionary march is READY TO ACCEPT its (New Civilization’s) values as mankind’s own need and FEEL as if there is something hollow without them.
What are the values of New Civilization of which mankind may feel as if there is something hollow without them and therefore may become ready to accept them?
To delineate them I intend to resume publishing a series of articles on these pages. Also they are aimed at provoking our collective consciousness to open up and take a stand on the burning issues of our civilization. Most of these issues relate with the very SURVIVAL of mankind and with shaping her DESTINY on Earth. I invite all those who visit these pages to take a clear stand – for or against - and contribute by making comments. Also I invite them to join the Workgroup – a workgroup of individuals making New Civilization Global Initiative – and become part of the process of CONSCIOUS evolution of human race at the present CROSSROADS of her destiny.
The (draft) Charter of Action of New Civilization Global Movement contains a definite number of BASIC PREMISE. An overview of these propositions is given here. In subsequent articles, each of these propositions would be taken up and dealt with. At appropriate intervals some other relevant topics may also be taken up to make the matter more clear. The basic propositions of Charter are:
Charter is founded on FIVE FAITHS (that relate to HEART) and THREE CONVICTIONS (that relate to MIND) of global citizens. Charter seeks to DENY the respect and dominant place to the Present Civilization and to GIVE the same to New Civilization, which Civilization seeks to accomplish FIVE OBJECTIVES of human beings.
The faith propositions are:
1. Planet Earth is our COMMON HOME.
2. We have inherited it only in TRUST for use in decent manner and not for spoiling it by our improper acts.
3. Earth is not only for OUR use but also for the use of all other life-species dwelling on it.
4. This trust casts an obligation on us to PASS ON this planet not in inferior health but, if possible in better health to SUCCEEDING GENERATIONS of human beings and to all other life-species that would overtake it from us.
5. All life-species are miracle, blooming flowers in Universe’s barren desert and sacrosanct in their right to exist. We human beings have evolved our MIND to an extent where we are able enough to realize that all these non-human life-species have equal right to co-exist with us. Unless these life-species pose a danger to our safe dwelling on Earth, they deserve protection and preservation at our hands.
6. All man-made disputes of any nature can be resolved by man. And man has evolved his MIND to that evolutionary stage where he can realize that it is in his own interest that these disputes are resolved in PEACE and AMITY.
7. All life is evolving on Earth. Human being is a product of this evolution. Evolution has not stopped with the advent of human being. The process is extremely slow – barely perceptible in thousands of years – yet the process is on. We human beings must accept that we human beings are not the FINAL PRODUCT of this process and our MIND is not the ultimate TOOL of exploring realty around it and in universe.
8. But we human beings have evolved us SIGNIFICANTLY and have MIND that is capable to explore the unknown universe, in both directions of scale – micro and macro. We can harness to our use the secrets of nature and her forces. This our capability enables us today, if we are wise enough and choose this wisdom, to CONSCIOUSLY shape our DESTINY. This capability makes it possible for us to shape the destiny of EARTH also. Human beings can make an impact even on the destiny of UNIVERSE.
The conviction propositions are:
1. Human beings are capable to destroy themselves. This capability is now PRESENT and they need only the DECISION to destroy. Any serious man-made dispute may act as a TRIGGER to take this decision.
2. Sustainable human-unity, if we achieve at the global scale, is the only EEFECTIVE and WORKABLE guarantee against the danger of self-annihilation posed by divided human beings.
3. This unity can only be established if we human beings realize that our INTERESTS are common, that the PURPOSE OF LIFE on Earth is common and that the DESTINY of human race is common.
Charter seeks to accomplish these objectives, which are in common interest of all human beings:
Firstly, COLLECTIVE SURVIVAL
1. New Civilization seeks to accomplish survival not only of all ethnic divisions and subdivisions of human race living in different countries of the world but also of ALL life-species dwelling on Earth.
2. It seeks to secure this objective by ensuring that peoples of Earth stand on the side of PEACE and not war for any cause whatsoever.
3. It also seeks to accomplish this objective by ensuring that peoples establish on our planet GOOD ORDER and not anarchy under any ideology.
4. It further seeks to secure this objective by compelling all organized groups of human beings on Earth, whether organized under the banner of nation-states or of any other common human feelings, to DISARM themselves completely of the WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
5. New Civilization seeks to accomplish this objective of collective survival not only by persuading peoples in the world to observe self-restraints in their inter se relations but also by paying RESPECT TO NATURE and its ways through its conservation.
Secondly, FREEDOM
1. New Civilization seeks to accomplish freedom of individual from any kind of oppression, whether it is of political kind or of the kind of economic, culture or social.
2. It seeks to accomplish this freedom of individual from oppression within the human organization of nation-states and also international relations of such nation-states.
3. New Civilization seeks to secure this state of freedom for individuals by ensuring that the human rights of individual are protected in the organized society of human beings.
4. It also seeks to secure this freedom of individuals by ensuring that the interests of organized society are guarded against criminals and anarchy.
Thirdly, COMMON PROSPERITY
1. New Civilization seeks to accomplish prosperity not only of one set of human beings (as against another set of those who remain poor) but of ALL.
2. It seeks to secure prosperity for all people by utilizing the TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS made by human beings. These advancements make it possible for human beings to REDUCE THE WORK HOURS for all those who are engaged in creating wealth. New Civilization does not permit utilization of these advancements to make a set of human beings WORK-LESS and to allow another set to ACCUMULATE wealth. Instead, it seeks to utilize these advancements to make available LEASURE-HOURS to all those who are engaged in wealth production.
3. It also seeks to secure this objective by utilizing SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT of natural resources of Earth so that waste of these precious resources is avoided, there is no unsustainable exploitation of these resources and, on that account, no ecological imbalance is created by man.
4. New Civilization seeks to utilize these measures in order to bring efficiency in production and distribution of man-made wealth.
Fourthly, GLOBAL UNITY
1. New Civilization aims at accomplishing UNITY among different subdivisions of mankind on Earth by promoting mutual RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY among them.
2. It also aims to secure this unity by promoting UNDERSTANDING with one another. (refer to the contribution that may be made in this respect by the concept of RELATIVITY and FRAMES OF REFERENCE).
3. New Civilization also seeks to secure this unity by admitting that there exists DIVERSITY among different subdivisions of mankind and promoting HARMONY amid this diversity.
And fifthly and finally, ENLIGHTNMENT
1. New Civilization seeks to accomplish enlightenment of human beings by encouraging them to imbibe the KNOWLEDGE OF SCIENCE.
2. It seeks to encourage them to imbibe the knowledge of MATERIAL SCIENCE. It encourages them to learn and know what modern Physics and other branches of science have revealed to us, like our place in the Universal Time, Unity of Fundamental Forces of nature, Mirror- Images of OUR matter, Life and its Codes, convergence of all branches of science, etc. etc.
3. New Civilization also seeks to encourage them to imbibe the knowledge of PSYCHIC SCIENCE. It encourages them to learn and know what psychic sciences are revealing to us, like Near Death Perception, Extra-sensory Perception, Life after Death, Planes of Consciousness, etc. etc.
4. New Civilization also seeks to bring enlightenment among human beings by encouraging them to ALWAYS REMAIN OPEN and READY to change of one’s intellectual convictions.
(*) EXPLANATORY NOTE:
We are oblized to use a 'term' that conveys the reality. New Civilization Global Initiative - a global Workgroup of individuals - is in existence and is on the job. This Global Initiative may turn into a Global Movement or may not. Till this Initiative is swelled into Movement, we would prefer to employ the term 'Initiative'.
More >
|
|
|
|
6 Nov 2005 @ 15:14, by gamblor. Systems Thinking
Some good stuff in those links in the comments of the previous post.
I am familiar with the LETS concept and I think its a great way for these local economic activities to be facilitated. But for my system design I wanted a pure mutual credit with no central issuing authority. The idea would be like the Mediated Three-Party Transactions in blueboy's transaction.net link. Essentially the idea has three parties for every transaction, the offeror, the acceptor (assuming they do in fact accept it) and the STR (Shared Transaction Repository) which verifies the other party identities, ensures the validity of the offer record, and keeps a public record of the transaction.
This is my idea (well not really mine - i unknowingly fished it out of the noosphere with the help of people like Bernard Lietaer and Todd Boyle) of a means of accounting for stuff without reference to national fiat currencies. Such a system can just be used by people who want to use it, regardless of the health (or existence) of national currencies. It can be used to build cross linked trust networks which scale to an infinite level, so eventually people wont need to put their faith in governments (and their bankmasters) for their livlihoods and can instead put that trust in themselves. All that is needed to sustain this system is at the very minimum one powered computer with the software installed. A network of powered computers (like the internet is) would just makes the system more robust.
I've fallen into a bit of a doomsday crowd as of late (probably from hanging around on TheOilDrum.com for a while haha), focussed mainly on two big problems: the infinite growth required by central-bank-interest-bearing-notes capitalism, and the peak in oil production that we seem to be witnessing now. Thinking about these scenarios and what could happen in a situation of society collapse have been major motivators in developing a new money system. I have serious doubts that any new money system will take hold on a large scale until, at the least, national currencies like the USD start to implode. Because for the great many, existing national currencies are simply "good enough". More >
|
|
|
|
 19 Apr 2005 @ 16:06, by ming. Systems Thinking
In 1985 Bob Black wrote a brilliant essay called "The Abolition of Work". A monumentally brilliant manifesto, in my opinion. Suggesting, as it says, that we abolish work all together, and instead live playful lives. He outlines in colorful ways the tyranny of work, and the insanities we're putting up with in the name of work. And he outlines the faulty foundation the whole scheme is based on. I will include the whole essay in the "More" link as it isn't copyrighted. So just one quote here:Work makes a mockery of freedom. The official line is that we all have rights and live in a democracy. Other unfortunates who aren't free like we are have to live in police states. These victims obey orders or-else, no matter how arbitrary. The authorities keep them under regular surveillance. State bureaucrats control even the smaller details of everyday life. The officials who push them around are answerable only to higher-ups, public or private. Either way, dissent and disobedience are punished. Informers report regularly to the authorities. All this is supposed to be a very bad thing.
And so it is, although it is nothing but a description of the modern workplace. The liberals and conservatives and libertarians who lament totalitarianism are phonies and hypocrites. There is more freedom in any moderately deStalinized dictatorship than there is in the ordinary American workplace. You find the same sort of hierarchy and discipline in an office or factory as you do in a prison or monastery. In fact, as Foucault and others have shown, prisons and factories came in at about the same time, and their operators consciously borrowed from each other's control techniques. A worker is a part time slave. The boss says when to show up, when to leave, and what to do in the meantime. He tells you how much work to do and how fast. He is free to carry his control to humiliating extremes, regulating, if he feels like it, the clothes you wear or how often you go to the bathroom. With a few exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or no reason. He has you spied on by snitches and supervisors, he amasses a dossier on every employee. Talking back is called "insubordination," just as if a worker is a naughty child, and it not only gets you fired, it disqualifies you for unemployment compensation. Without necessarily endorsing it for them either, it is noteworthy that children at home and in school receive much the same treatment, justified in their case by their supposed immaturity. What does this say about their parents and teachers who work?
The demeaning system of domination I've described rules over half the waking hours of a majority of women and the vast majority of men for decades, for most of their lifespans. For certain purposes it's not too misleading to call our system democracy or capitalism or -- better still -- industrialism, but its real names are factory fascism and office oligarchy. Anybody who says these people are "free" is lying or stupid. You are what you do. If you do boring, stupid monotonous work, chances are you'll end up boring, stupid and monotonous. Work is a much better explanation for the creeping cretinization all around us than even such significant moronizing mechanisms as television and education. People who are regimented all their lives, handed off to work from school and bracketed by the family in the beginning and the nursing home at the end, are habituated to heirarchy and psychologically enslaved. Their aptitude for autonomy is so atrophied that their fear of freedom is among their few rationally grounded phobias. Their obedience training at work carries over into the families they start, thus reproducing the system in more ways than one, and into politics, culture and everything else. Once you drain the vitality from people at work, they'll likely submit to hierarchy and expertise in everything. They're used to it. He's right. However, what he is saying is ironically also so radical that few people will be able to understand it. Most people will come up with a lot of "but... but... but..."s, trying to justify why they're wasting their lives. Well, it mostly adds up to "because we have to", which is exactly what makes work be work. Because the cards are stacked in such a way that we apparently have to work in order to eat, unless we're very lucky, or very smart, so we can manage to arrange things so we don't.
As he points out, most work is useless, non-sensical, wasted. But the people who do it have a lot invested in claiming otherwise. All the stuff we need could be produced by probably less than 5% of the effort we expend at work. And that is not even getting to the cool, new, interesting, different things we could do if we actually had fun and acted playfully instead of as slaves. And how much more productive we could be, ironically.
It probably isn't going to change before somebody demonstrates that clearly enough and often enough. And it might ironically be quite likely that it will be businesses who figure out how to produce much more by being playful rather than work oriented, and who therefore will gain an advantage. More >
|
|
<< Newer entries Page: 1 2 3 4 Older entries >> |
|
