Bcc: contributors. Website: http://cyberjournal.org ============================================================================ From: "Alan Spector" <•••@••.•••> To: "Paul Riesz" <•••@••.•••>, <•••@••.•••> Cc: "Fair Trade" <•••@••.•••>, "WSN" <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: Can capitalism be reformed? Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 14:53:41 -0500 Paul Riesz writes the following in reference to my comments: > You and many of your ideological comrades would - of course - prefer more drastic solutions, but if past history gives us any clues, such extremist programs are bound up with dictatorial governments which sooner or later lead to the bloody excesses of Stalin and Pol Pot, since POWER CORRUPTS AND ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY. ------------------------------------------------- That's real cute -- "you and your ideological comrades" . It kinda makes it sound like I (and my "ideological comrades") don't care about real live, flesh-and-blood humans, but rather are preoccupied with adhering to some rigid doctrine -- as opposed to those who support the liberal imperialists (albeit with some criticisms) who are supposedly concerned about "people" instead of ideologies. These are empirical questions, that can be discussed, if not settled, by evidence. Which has cost more human lives and created more suffering-- the bloody Chinese government and years of Communist Party rule, or the "peaceful" transition of Gandhi and his friends, and the continuing mass starvation, disease, child slavery, that has destroyed so many millions of lives there over the past fifty years? What might have happened in the world if there were no Soviet Revolution and a pro-fascist Tsarist Russia formed an alliance with Nazi Germany? And who created Pol Pot (I'll give you a hint: The massive U.S. destabilization of Indochina had just a little to do with it -- as well as significant U.S. govt. support for Pol Pot as an ally against the pro-Soviet forces.) There is the unstated assumption, shared by conservatives and Keynesians alike, that with all its weaknesses, the capitalist model still guarantees more "freedom" from "absolute power" than the Marxist model. Tell that to the victims of capitalist-imperialism--from the victims of mass murderous coups and regimes from Chile to Indonesia to Iran, the Congo, Guatemala, Honduras, Argentina, and Greece, Palestine, South Africa and a hundred other places, to the many tens of millions more who die slower, more painful deaths from mass disease created by militarily enforced capitalism. (Forty thousand will die of (preventable) measles in Ethiopia alone this year....try mentally projecting that misery across the whole world to begin to get a better picture of the scale of capitalism's depredations.) The supposedly "non-absolute power" of the capitalists, including their willing partners, the pro-imperialist liberals and social democrats, and including "Lord" Keynes have been responsible for misery, suffering, and death that truly dwarf whatever happened in "Stalin's Russia." Until intellectuals and activists in the so-called "First World" understand this, they will continue to be, at best irrelevant, and at worst, partners in this miserable set of affairs. Alan Spector P.S. Of course Keynsian Economics, "priming the pump" (or saving the patient from blood loss shock by pumping in plasma, or taking a shot of caffeine to borrow some of tomorrow's heartbeats for today, or whatever metaphor you want to use) can have a short term effect of softening the crisis of capitalism for a while. But the fundamental question is whether capitalism can meet people's needs, and furthermore, whether those in power will EVER relinquish power without "drastic" measures being forced on them. It is not something that any of us look forward to, but right now, the "drastic" circumstances that many people are being forced to endure from the garbage dumps of Rio to the sex slave shops of Bangkok are just as "drastic" to them as the reality of "ideological-drastic" measures in the so-called "First World" might be to people there. ============================================================================ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:48:14 -0400 To: •••@••.••• From: Jay Fenello <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: [FixGov] re9: Returning to the Garden, mythologies, the movement, etc. Cc: •••@••.•••, •••@••.••• 4/25/01, •••@••.••• wrote: [Marguerite's words snipped] Hi Marguerite, Maybe I wasn't very clear. I agree with your critique of the current mythology of Jesus, and I argue that it is a result of the movement He started being captured somewhere between his death and 325 CE. Retracing this history, and showing how His message was subverted, will help people to better understand where they are, and where they are going. Further, I venture to say that should His original message be restored, it would not be incompatible with the teachings of Tao, or Buddha, or any of the other great spiritual and religious teachings of our day. Strategically, aligning the Christian community behind our efforts makes a lot of sense. Not only do they represent over a quarter of the world's population (1 billion +), but they already have so-called "community learning centers" set-up and politically active. In closing, I strongly believe that we must get beyond these things that divide us. Before we rule out over a quarter of the world's population, let's try and find ways we can all work together. Jay. ================ Dear Jay, Can you imagine how profoundly powerful it would be if a significant portion of the conservative religious community were to find common ground with the emerging movement? Our rulers would be shaking in their boots, and their days in office would be numbered. That breakthrough will be the political equivalent of achieving critical mass in a fission reaction. (Pardon the ghastly metaphor, but it has just the right punch.) And why shouldn't it happen? Religious people have no 'class interest' in the current system, in fact they're just as fed up with it as we are. And the movement has no intolerance toward religious people, in fact there are quite a few already participating. If lines of communication can be opened up, there is no reason progress cannot be made. But we need to be aware of the well-oiled propaganda machine aimed at those folks, from the pulpits and other sources, intertwined with biblical references. cheers, rkm ============================================================================ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 03:52:51 -0400 To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••> From: Jay Fenello <•••@••.•••> Subject: re10: Returning to the Garden, world government, etc. Cc: •••@••.•••, •••@••.•••, •••@••.•••, •••@••.••• [excerpted] Hi Richard, Thank you for your comments, and this opportunity to better understand our mutual positions. I've suggested that the issue is bigger than economics or politics ... that it is a matter of consciousness. If we can simply raise people's consciousness, our current political systems will correct themselves, and our current economic excesses will decline. If we can help people to become "inner-directed," we will eradicate unhealthy hierarchical authority structures (and the supporting movement will be almost impossible to hijack). rkm> In the current movement there is much to give us hope. As I've said many times, it's based on consensus, decentralized decision making, no primary leaders, and inclusiveness. On this, we totally agree :-) ================== Dear Jay, Why do you believe that lots of people becoming 'inner-directed' is going to correct our political systems? Suppose 80% had achieved inner-direction, what would happen next? An over-emphasis on the ~individual~, is what our culture already drills into us. As I see it, what we need now is a heavy re-balancing toward ~collective~ consciousness, ~community~ consciousness, and the ability to work together collaboratively. That's why I'm so encouraged by the emerging culture of the movement. Furthermore, people report that the movement experience is profoundly empowering at a personal level. It is not a 'mind meld' to some least common denominator, but rather an awakening of each individual as a fully equal and creative participant in the group process. It is like being freed from a cage. This may in fact be very close to what you're talking about, with inner direction. I suggest the movement is a ~means~ of creating such a consciousness transformation, rather than the other way around. But I certainly support any efforts by yourself or anyone else that helps people 'wake up', however you go about it! More power to you. rkm ============================================================================ Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:00:35 -0400 To: •••@••.••• From: Jay Fenello <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: A parable for a new paradigm Cc: •••@••.•••, •••@••.••• Hi Richard, Excellent start ... and very similar to what I was trying to describe. Jay. ========== Dear Jay, Thanks. Let me say something about the use of parables, or 'teaching stories' in the Sufi tradition. What I'm saying also applies to the use of stories in the Zen tradition. The basic starting point of this literature is that truth is ineffable - 'truth' is not something that can be adequately expressed in words. One basis for this perspective are the reports people give who have enlightenment experiences - they usually say, "It's beyond words." Another basis for the perspective is related to your own concerns about people 'acting unconsciously'. The way Sufi's and Zen people see it, ~every~ culture, by the very nature of enculturation, ~conditions~ us to see reality in certain very limited ways. Our very language, such as the names for colors, limits the distinctions we make between things. The very concepts and categories by which we understand the world are a barrier to deeper understanding. The 'internal software' we develop in becoming adults ~always~ has built-in blindspots. That is why 'truth' cannot be expressed as a manual or holy text or ideology. Nonetheless, these people have found ways to hint at truth through the use of words. They have developed an impressive collection of 'teaching stories'. No one story 'tells all', and the stories work at many levels of consciousness. They are much deeper than parables, which usually have one obvious 'moral'. Each story addresses, one might say, a ~cluster~ of preconceptions. A situation is set up, and then surprising things happen, and people in the story respond in unexpected ways. At the end, although you might have learned something obvious, you are mostly scratching your head wondering what it was all about. In this way the stories keep 'working on' your preconceptions. Someday a situation comes up in real life, and there's a moment of recognition, "Ah ha! that's what the story was about." It's a kaleidoscope approach to 'waking up'. The next time you read that story, you see a whole new level of meaning. In terms of us waking up as a society, and as a movement, I think we need many voices and many threads of convergence. If Christians come to support the movement, it will be by a different set of 'wake up messages' than will be experienced by liberals or whoever. Each of us must 'wake up' from wherever we are, and we each have different lessons to learn. I believe the movement will eventually develop some kind of core 'ethic' or 'world view', but that will happen organically over time, as a cultural process. That's why I discourage too much emphasis on a grand 'new ideology' at this point in the process. I don't think it is what we need right now, and such efforts would be divisive. all the best, rkm ============================================================================ Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:26:10 +0200 From: Richard Richardson <•••@••.•••> X-Accept-Language: en To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••> CC: •••@••.•••, Jay Fenello <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: [alternativeculture] forward from RKM [excerpted] My proposal for developing an ideology for humanity is not the same as humanism, which many people associate with atheism and oppose it for this reason. Neither did I propose deism, which atheists might not relate to. But both deists and atheists are human, and therefore should be able to agree on some basic concepts in an ideology for humanity, and agree to disagree on their differences. ================= Dear Richard R, Please see my various comments above, re ideologies. rkm ============================================================================ From: "Leonard Rifas" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: A parable for a new paradigm Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 08:28:58 -0700 Your parable reminds me of a book I have not yet read: The Parable of the Tribes : The Problem of Power in Social Evolution by Andrew Bard Schmookler amazon.com supplies a few reader-written summaries of Schmookler's parable. Perhaps you've already cited Schmookler's book. Best regards. Enjoying your good work and friendly tone, Leonard =========== Dear Leonard, I didn't know about the book - thanks. all the best, rkm ============================================================================ Subject: Re: A parable for a new paradigm Date: Sun, 29 Apr 01 10:11:39 -0700 From: Bruce Elkin <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••>, <•••@••.•••>, <•••@••.•••> > Finally people everywhere set down their tools and said enough is enough. The rulers retreated in dismay, everyone returned to the garden, and they all lived happily ever after Richard, These last sentences in your parable seem terribly defeatist too me. I have a friend who suggests that the best way to get back to the garden (i.e. to the undifferentiated state of consciousness common to plants and animals) is to have a pre-frontal lobotomy, or have do heroine. He's only half joking. I think that there are other optimistic endings to the parable, transcendence for one. Going beyond the current culture without having to destroy it or ourselves in the process. The Spiral Dynamics guys and Ken Wilber write about this approach to development, talking about each level in an spirally ascending growth or actualization hierarchy includes and transcends the previous levels. We don't necessarily have to go to being the same kind of leavers that preceded the taker culture, we can create a new kind of leaving culture that transcends the current culture yet includes much of what is good in it. Human beings do the same things when they move from a pre-conventional to conventional and finally to post-conventional world views. They escape a conventional worldview, they do not have to drop back down to preconventional views (though many do), they can work their way up the line of development and transcend the conventional world view in favor of a more all-inclusive, transcendent post conventional world view. Cheers! Bruce ================== Whatever are you on about? You speak in abstractions and generalities. Please tell us what you have in mind when you say 'a new kind of leaving culture'! And excuse me! Who said anything about "undifferentiated state of consciousness common to plants and animals". That's your concept, not mine. To me, 'returning to the garden' is analogous to enlightenment. With enlightenment, they say, one recovers the openness of childhood but without losing the knowledge of adulthood. We can recover our sense of being 'part of' the world, and being 'in harmony' with the world, but we will still know about technology, science, et al, and we will be armed with a deep understanding of where the tempting taker path leads in the end. We now know why we should avoid the fruit of the tree of the gods. (Biotech - the ultimate sin.) regards, rkm ============================================================================
