Last Friday, I wrote of my Eureka Moment from thinking about ORTEGRITY in different way. I repost that short essay this morning followed by responses from two readers and my comments.
DYMAXION: More with Less
This morning I had an insight that I feel is very important. When we examine the biological needs of a number of single celled organisms surviving as individuals versus the needs of the same number of cells working together within the body of an organism, we find the cells working together are able to reduce their biological needs by 100 to 1000 times. The bodies of all living systems are organized synergically. That means the cells work together and solve the problems of survival as a unified team.
These facts from biology were the basis of my prediction in my description of ORTEGRITY, that humans organized synergically could expect 100 to 1000 times increases in productivity and efficiency. As you know, Ortegrity is designed to insure that all members win and internal conflict is eliminated.
Recall that the larger a tensegrity is, the more powerful it will be. Synergic science predicts this will also be true for human organizations structured as Ortegrities. Therefore, I would expect a trend towards very large organizations.
Imagine, what could be possible if the entire human species were a single organization. The synergic strategies of Ortegrity could be used to organize all of humanity into a single level 12 Ortegrity up to a limit of 13,841,287,201 humans.
In our present world, with its obsession with growth and growing larger, whenever I have presented the ORTEGRITY to business people, they have been excited by the possibility of increasing production. However, they tend to overlook the point that these systems could be 100 to 1000 times more efficient.
Now being more productive doesn't mean you have to produce more. It also means you could produce what you need in less time and then have more time for yourself and your family. Being more efficient means you can do with a lot more with less energy and matter. If these biological truths hold up for humans organizing synergically, we could do much more with a great deal less.
This morning I realized there was another way to look at this synergic power.
What this efficiency means is that the ecological footprint of 6 billion synergically organized humans could be as low as that of 60 million to 6 million of today's adversary-neutrally dis-organized humans.
Now how we would live we would be very different. There would be very few people moving in powered vehicles. Most of today's products would disappear. We would focus on creating a few great products that met our individual and collective needs. Human wants would be serviced only after energy analysis and cost to benefit ratio determined that such wants were acceptable.
There would be a continuing competition to design the best of any type of tool, and then only that "state of the art" tool would be created and shared by groups of humans working and living together. There would only be one brand of any device. Competition would occur in the design studio. Prototypes would be made, but only the very best would be manufactured.
Energy wasting hobbies and activities would be greatly curtailed if not completely eliminated. All activities would be examined for energy requirements, and the only activities allowed would be those with acceptable cost to benefit ratios.
This change to synergy with energy responsibility could bring a major resurgence in music and the arts, writing, poetry, theater, singing ,dancing, debate, discussion, lectures, etc., etc.. But, I expect, we would see no one taking a joy ride in a vehicle powered by an internally combustion engine.
I had two readers respond to the above essay which prompted the following.
In my essay on the synergic organization of humanity and the efficiency of Ortegrity. I had written:
Recall that the larger a tensegrity is, the more powerful it will be.
Ortegrity is a tensegrity. The tensegrity is the pattern that results when push and pull have a win-win relationship with each other. The pull is continuous and the push is discontinuous. The continuous pullis balancedby the discontinuous push producing an integrity of tension and compression. Tensegrities are the most powerful organizing pattern found in universe. They can be physical, biological or social. Within the human ORTEGRITY, the members continuous needs are being met by the discontinuous actions of the members.
Buckminster Fuller who first scientifically defined of tensegrity, has build many physical tensegrities. Here we see a very simple example where the silver struts are the discontinuous pushes and the orange-yellow cable is the continuous pull.
Pneumatic and hydraulic structures are tensegrities. A child's balloon is a tensegrity. The discontinuous motion of the air molecules are balanced against the continuous pull of the rubber skin. When you strike the surface of a balloon with your fist it is hard to break. The force of the blow is distributed throughout the entire structure. Our automobile tires are tensegrities. That is why they are so reliable. The larger the balloon the larger force it can withstand. The larger a tensegrity the stronger it is.
The geodesic dome at the Epcot Center in Florida is also a tensegrity. Here both the continuous pull and discontinuous push forces are embedded within the surface of the dome.
One of their properties is that they are always stronger the larger they are. Now certainly within a finite universe, their size would be limited by the amount of matter-energy with which to construct them. But in a place as large as the known universe physical tensegrities could be constructed that would contain a planet.
Biological tensegrities are the very basis of living systems. Donald E. Ingber, MD of Harvard Medical School describes tensegrity at the cellular level. At a higher level, the muscle-skeletal systemis atensegrityof muscle and bone, the muscle provides continuous pull, the bones discontinuous push.The forces between the bones and muscles are held in constant balance. This forms the basis for all of our physical mobility.
Stephen Levin, MD describes the biotensegrity that explains the powerful function of the human shoulder.
The central nervous system also functions as a tensegrity. The sensory-motor system is a tensegrity of sensory neurons and motor neurons. The sensory neurons always sensing information – continuously pulling and the motor neurons only occasionally involved in some motor action – discontinuously pushing.
The human body is a biological tensegrity. And a single human body contains ~40, 000 billion cells. This enormous example of complexity is a result of the power of synergy and in particular of tensegrity.
In my essay on the synergic organization of humanity and the efficiency of Ortegrity, I wrote:
Recall that the larger a tensegrity is, the more powerful it will be. Synergic science predicts this will also be true for human organizations structured as Ortegrities. Therefore, I would expect a trend towards very large organizations.
Imagine, what could be possible if the entire human species were a single organization. The synergic strategies of Ortegrity could be used to organize all of humanity into a single level 12 Ortegrity up to a limit of 13,841,287,201 humans.
In response to that statement, reader Alan Lewis writes:
No. There are economies of scale, after which begin DISeconomies of scale. Read Kirkpatrick Sale's "Human Scale".
Synergistic relations involving ever-more participants are great up to a point. Then they level. Then they become *dysergies*, or negative synergies -- synergistic effects in the *opposite* of the intended direction. To posit otherwise is to suggest a world in which there are no limits, and that bigger is always better. Surely we know better than that by now! And surely, to take one small example, you have experienced the way in which a business meeting gets better with 2, 3, 5 or maybe 8 people in attendance, but then levels, and starts deteriorating rapidly as the numbers get larger (20, 30, and up) (that is, unless the meeting is structured in such a way that most attendees cannot have the floor). More is good -- to a point. Then it starts falling apart. SCALE must be accounted for as a variable (see Sale's "Human Scale").
Recall the Zen-ish maxim from the 70's: The ultimate in any concept is its opposite. Everything, taken to a point, is good, then levels, then becomes bad (excessive), and actually turns into the antithesis of what it started as. That would include synergies, which become dysergies.
If you travel far enough West, you will end up in the East. It's the nature of our world.
I think we are comparing apples to oranges here. Please take the time to read my paper on Ortegrity carefully.
Ortegrity is a mechanism of organizing humans synergically. That is so that all members of the organization win and internal conflict is eliminated. How this is accomplished is well explained in the online paper.
The size of an Ortegrity is theoretically unlimited. It could be used to organize two humans, or all of present humanity (6.3 billion) into a single organization. Now those 6.3 billion humans are still here today whether they are synergically organized or adversarily-neutrally dis-organized.
I am not arguing for any increase in population. I think that we have far too many humans. As I have written elsewhere, reproduction is not a property right. Reproduction is a Trust Privilege. No individual has the right to reproduce if that reproduction would injure humanity as Community.
You have used the position of Kirkpatrick Sale on "human scale" to refute the possibility of benefit from a large Ortegrity. I think we are talking about two different things. Let's take a moment to better understand Sale's position.
Sale is from the "Small is Beautiful" camp of E. F. Schumacher. In fact, he served as chairman of the Schumacher Society. From the About the Society page on their website:
In a world afflicted with giantism in its social, economic, and political institutions, decentralism is often mistakenly identified as radical, but it is in fact based on many traditional values. Decentralists are a diverse group, but they share a common belief in restoring community self-reliance and bringing economic and social activities back to a more human scale.
In An Overview of Decentralism, Kirkpatrick Sale writes:
Let me start by suggesting some of the things that decentralists generally agree on, whatever part of the round earth they come from.
First, big is bad - the corollary of Schumacher's small is beautiful.
Ortegrity does not argue for giantism, it is simply a mechanism of the organization for existing groups of humans.
If the group of humans is small, then it is a mechanism for organizing a small group of humans. If the group is large than it is a mechanism for organizing a large group of humans.
As an example. Let us say we are trying to organize 1000 individuals. Ortegrity does make the case that two organizations of 500 members will be more powerful and efficiently than twenty organizations of 50 members. It further argues that one single synergic organization of 1000 members is the ideal structure for this example.
Now if the goal is to organize the 6.3 billion humans currently living on the planet, then the most powerful and efficient structure would be a single level 12 Ortegrity.
Why?
Because synergic science is all about working together. We live on a single planet, we all share the same water, air and resources of the single small planet. Control of reality is shared. If I foul the water or air, I foul your water and your air. Whatever I do, will effect you. Whatever you do, will effect me. If we work together, we can minimize the harm we do each other, and maximize the benefits of solving our problems together.
Sale continues:
The centralized state, particularly the mass-society state of the 20th century, is inherently a failure: it is authoritarian and anti-liberty, imposing checks and laws on all individual actions; it is hierarchical and arbitrary, with power at the top and subservience for the great majority below; it is bureaucratic in order to function at all, but it functions poorly nonetheless because bureaucracies are always inefficient and clumsy and self-perpetuating; it is undemocratic, because it is too big to allow direct face-to-face decision making and substitutes various forms of representation, all of which take power from the individual.
Ortegrity is not authoritarian or anti-liberty. Ortegrity is not hierarchical and arbitrary. The power is not at the top and there is no subservience. All decisions are make face to face with synergic consensus. Every individual has the power to veto any loss. Sale is simply describing the present adversary-neutral dis-organizations that dominate our world today.
Sales continues, I have added the bolding. Speaking after September 11, Sale said:
I have been accused of being ‘apocalyptic’...and so indeed I am...that the horrible attacks in the US this week...the sudden, swift eradication of what in prospect was some 20,000 lives...are in fact signals of a global apocalypse? That blow was not an act of terrorism...for if no one claims responsibility, it has no political leverage, it has no effective response...it was just an act of apocalyptic insanity.
It was a powerful symbol of the new phase of global society we are in, signaling the collapse of social and political arrangements as we know them now...exacerbated by increasing environmental damage and depletion...new and newly virulent diseases...political disintegration and genocide...financial disarray and worldwide depression...increased cultural and psychological chaos...and the thrashing about of national and corporate dinosaurs in their death throes.
That is the apocalyptic scenario into which we all have been thrust. That being so, what are we to do? What must our lives be? Where should our actions point? Let me try to suggest an answer...
...My thinking has grown in a major way out of the book I wrote a few years ago on the Luddites of yore, which I called ‘Rebels Against the Future’. From their experience I drew a series of lessons, and the four most important ones make up the reasoning behind my notion of bioregional communities.
First...the modern nation state and the stem of corporate capitalism are entwined with a synergistic power that is not going to be undone or overthrown...
Sale uses the term synergistic here differently than a synergic scientist would use it. Synergic scientists reserve the word synergy for positive (win-win) effects. When negative effects (win/lose or lose/lose) multiply each other, we use the term dysergy. So I would correct his sentence to be compatibility with synergic science as follows:
First...the modern nation state and the stem of corporate capitalism are entwined with a dysergic power that is not going to be undone or overthrown...
Not with more adversary-neutral dis-organizations.
Second...that does not mean that individuals are helpless...and should silently bury their heads under the covers and give up life...it is possible...indeed necessary...to express opposition to the conditions of industrial civilisation...
Third...this industrial civilisation around us will collapse...and the awful destruction in the US this week shows that it is beginning...according to 'Sale’s Law'...all civilisations always collapse...from a failure to understand both scale and limits...and a resulting growth in resource exploitation that leads to environmental collapse...economic inequity...and political ossification that leads to social dislocation.
All adversary-neutral dis-organized civilizations collapse. There has never been a synergically organized civilization.
Fourth...if humans survive this collapse...and that is by no means certain given the kinds and levels of our assaults on the earth...they will have an opportunity to recast human arrangements and it will be necessary for these survivors to have some body of lore...and some vision of human regeneration...that instructs them in how to live in harmony with nature and how to fashion their technologies with the restraints and obligations a love of nature demands...
That lore should provide a vision of a world with political empowerments no larger than a bioregional scale... watersheds, islands, valleys...and based surely on small, self-controlled and self-governing communities... whose primary tasks are to restore, protect, and preserve the life-ways of nature in every dimension...that is to say, the bioregional vision and how to achieve it...
Ortegrity does not speak to where humans should live. It does not speak to how many humans there should be. It would have no argument with bioregional organization, or in massive population reduction. It would argue for communication and co-Operation between all humans using synergic consensus and synergic veto to protect both Humanity as Individuals and Humanity as Community.
My point about the efficiency of Ortegrity is not a call to increase production or population. It is a call for doing more with less. In my essay, I had written:
In our present world, with its obsession with growth and growing larger, whenever I have presented the ORTEGRITY to business people, they have been excited by the possibility of increasing production. However, they tend to overlook the point that these systems could be 100 to 1000 times more efficient.
Now being more productive doesn't mean you have to produce more. It also means you could produce what you need in less time and then have more time for yourself and your family. Being more efficient means you can do with a lot more with less energy and matter. If these biological truths hold up for humans organizing synergically, we could be doing much more with a great deal less.
This morning I realized there was another way to look at this synergic power.
What this efficiency means is that the ecological footprint of 6 billion synergically organized humans could be as low as that of 60 million to 6 million of today's adversary-neutrally dis-organized humans.
Alan Lewis in response to:
... these systems could be 100 to 1000 times more efficient.
No. This reminds me of that dude who came into Energy Resources Group a few weeks back and was trying to argue that it was possible to feed 5000 people from a single acre! Actually, he was off by about 2 orders of magnitude.
Certainly he was well-intentioned. And certainly it is true that great efficiencies are possible with concerted and well-informed efforts. But there are fundamental limits. 5000 people cannot be fed off of 1 acre. 50, maybe. *Maybe*, if everything is done precisely right.
And I might add that the effort involved in doing everything "precisely right" would be great, and would call for everyone to focus quite intently on the local project at hand (absolute maximization of output from a given plot of land). These people would in no way have the time or energy to devote to planet-scale "ortegrities" or any grand schemes beyond their own village effort.
Alan Lewis then writes in response to: What this efficiency means is that the ecological footprint of 6 billion synergically organized humans could be as low as that of 60 million to 6 million of today's adversary-neutrally dis-organized humans.
True *in the developed countries*. Not even close to true in the third world, where people are living right at the wire already (i.e. essentially ZERO waste, unlike here).
There is sufficient waste in the First World to realize perhaps a 10-fold increase in resource efficiency. But not 100- or 1000-fold. Those numbers are out in space, like that guy with his "5000 on 1 acre" argument.
The enormous re-organization that would occur with Ortegrity, is not imaginable without studying biological systems taking advantage of synergic mechanism. Honestly, 1 billion single celled organisms need 100 times more matter-energy to survive than a single 1 billion celled organism. And 40 trillion single celled organisms need 1000 times more matter-energy to survive than a single 40 trillion celled organism. The human body contains approximately, 40 trillion cells. Evolution developed biotensegrities because of this power.
Pleasant idea, however! --Alan
Thanks Alan for reading and thinking about my ideas. Another reader Hank Burroughs writes:
Some very interesting thoughts here, Timothy. I would like to know more about how you would propose to get people working together on a world wide basis. Personally, I don't think it would work in time to save us from the big "dieoff". Maybe the survivors will have a chance to rebuild a world society. For now I would like to concentrate on just surviving.
Remember Tensegrity is the most powerful way to organize in Universe. This is true for physics, biology, and society. Ortegrity can be used for much smaller groups--2, 10, 100, 1000, or 10,000 who are just trying to survive.
My point is that if we begin using the power of synergic science just maybe (and yes that is a big maybe), we can save many more humans from the dieoff. Hank continues:
However your ideas are intriguing so here are some questions for you:
1. What are the "great Products" that meet all human needs?
Many of our human needs are common. To survive for 24 hours, scientists have determined that the average human adult body requires 1.84 pounds of oxygen, 1.36 pounds of food solids, and 6.86 pounds of water.
For the majority of humans these basic needs seem pretty easily met. But few humans are satisfied with the basic needs as one very wise man once said, "Man does not live by bread alone." We humans need a lot more, and most of what we need has nothing to do with our bodies. Humans require a rich psychological and social life. In a word, humans require meaning in their lives. Plants and animals can just survive, but humans require meaningful survival.
An internet search for "human needs" results in lots of returns. As we examine these needs, we begin to realize that the relationship between other and self is enormously important for humans.
One internet page even divides human needs into two categories based upon whether they are related to other or to self.
Now a synergic strategy would involve working together to meet as many of mutual needs as we can. This would impact our needs for shelter, food, water, privacy, public safety, transportation, energy, materials, etc., etc.. Hank continues:
2. How can the "wants " of an individual be fairly determined by the group? For example I can now spend my extra income flying gliders or building a green house. Shouldn't this be my choice?
In a synergic society, you should have even more free time. Those activities that are not a squandering of matter-energy and that don't injury others would not be restricted. So I would expect you could fly your gliders and build your green house. You are always free to act personally and as an individual as long as your actions do not hurt Humanity as Individuals or Humanity as Community.
But the issue of wants and needs is an important one. Wants and needs are not the same. I want a Mercedes, but I need transportation. I want a gold Rolex, but I need to know the time. I want Gucci loafers, but I only need shoes. I want a million dollar architecturally designed home, but I only need safe, comfortable housing. Most of our desire for wants is created by powerful advertising created demand for wants rather than needs for the sole purpose of making money.
Our present culture is dominated by the idea that more is always better than less–that expensive is always better than inexpensive. Two phrases in common use today encapsulate this attitude: “The only difference between men and boys is the price of their toys.” and “He who dies with the most toys wins!”
Recall however that Nature is always seeking more for less–always seeking maximum efficiency in all that she does. Fuller called this principle of seeking more for less the “dymaxion” way. This is of course simply another way of stating the Principle of Least Action. In science the most elegant solution is the one that explains the most with the fewest variables. A synergic culture will be dominated by the dymaxion ideal. The best will be that which accomplishes the most with the least. Doing more with less will makes more available to help others. Helping others so that you are helped in return is the operating basis of synergic culture. There our human wants will move towards congruence with our human needs.
But, back to the present world, today’s wants are not only more than we need, but they often are not even good for us. I want a cigarette, but what I need is to relax. I want a drink of alcohol, but what I need in to reduce the stress in my life. I want an extra dessert, but what I need is more love in my life.
Much of what we want is not helpful for us and often times even harmful. But the laws of supply and demand respond as well to human wants as they do to human needs. Those products most demanded whether for wants or needs are considered valuable. And it is the possession of valuable things that is the usually definition of wealth. This means in today’s world many harmful things are valuable–cocaine is very valuable, and possession of a ton of cocaine would make me wealthy.
In a synergic science, we make a major distinction between creating life support or synergic wealth and just making money which is neutral wealth. Synergic wealth is more than just what humans want or value. Synergic wealth is that which supports human life.
Synergic Wealth is defined as life itself and that which promotes human well being generally–that which satisfies the human needs of self and other–that which promotes mutual survival and makes life meaningful for self and other.
3. Will I have any "extra" income? May be the answer to the above question.
This is a fundamental question in defining the rules for a synergic society. Will I still have property? If so what are my property rights? Let me address that in a moment. A synergic analysis of human wealth is in order:
The collective term we humans use to describe what we value is ‘wealth’. Synergic wealth is that which supports life for self and others. Synergic Wealth comes in two forms: Synergic Trust and Property
Synergic Trust — wealth that comes to us as a gift
This includes the Life Trust — life itself, the plants and animals which are a gift from God, and Nature, and our human bodies which are a gift from God, Nature, and our Parents.
It includes the Earth Trust — the sunshine, air, water, land, minerals, the earth itself all of which come to us freely. This wealth is provided to us by God and Nature.
And, thirdly it includes the Time Trust — the accumulated ‘knowing’ from the time-binding of all the humans who have ever lived and died. Our inherited Wisdom, Knowledge, and Information including Architecture, Art, Literature, Music, Science, and Technology. It is the Time Trust that forms the basis of all human progress.
We humans are the beneficiaries then of three major trusts — the Life Trust, the Earth Trust and the Time Trust. We, humans can not and do not own these trusts. They are not derived of our lives. They are not the product of our mind or labor. We have not paid for them. There is no moral or rational basis for us to claim ownership. They are not property.
Use of Trust requires the consent of Community. All such use must be synergically moral. It must not injure Humanity as Individuals or Humanity as Community. It must not injure the Earth or the viability and biodiversity of Life. We can take animals for food, fish from the oceans, plants from the wild and from are gardens. But we need to leave enough that Life and the planet remain healthy.
I explained that most human wealth is a gift and cannot be owned. As such it is a mistake to call this form of wealth property. Therefore, I coined the term "Synergic Trust" to represent wealth received as a gift. However, some wealth is property.
Property — wealth that we earn with our action and/or our leverage.
Action is how most humans earn their livings today. We work for salaries using either the action of our bodies, or solve problems using the actions of our minds. Our understanding of Time-binding has revealed that thinking is the most powerful form of human action. Many of us earn our livings today by thinking.
Tools allow humans to lever the power of their action. Humans are tool users and tool makers. If I am a skilled tool user I can sell my actions to serve others with my skills. If I am a skilled tool maker, I can sell the tools I make to give other leverage increase the effectiveness of their action. Thinking can produce ideas and discoveries which lead to hypotheses and theories which lead to technology designs which allows us to build technology artifacts or tools which leverages action further.
Property is synergic wealth created by human action and leverage. Property is not received as a gift, but is that which is earned by the labor of mind or body. Property is owned by the individual acting and the individual providing the leveraging.
PROPERTY—def—> Wealth created by human action and leverage. It belongs to the individual(s) whose action and leverage created it. All humans are entitled to the fruits of their action and leverage. All human-made wealth is property, and all property has an owner. The owners of property have 100% control over their property as long as such control does not injure others, this prohibition of injury includes other individuals’ property, and the synergic trusts.
Intellectual Property —>Thinking is recognized as a powerful form of action. Ideas, discoveries, hypotheses, theories, technology designs, inventions, as well as art, music, and writing are therefore property. Synergic science recognizes Galambos’ definition of Primary Property and fully accepts Intellectual Property Rights. Primary Property — Ideas, discoveries, hypotheses, theories, and technology designs can be used to develop Secondary Property—technology artifacts or tools which leverage further action.
Property Rights —> Owner(s) may transfer partial or complete control of their own property to others as they choose. They may sell, trade, rent, lease, license, gift, or donate their property as they please.
Hank continues:
4. Will I continue to have two homes so I can enjoy sunshine all year long? This might be difficult unless you provide a transportation means if you take away my car. It is about 1000 miles between homes. Maybe we could get a goat herd and walk back and forth as a life style.
If those homes are your property, yes of course. I expect transportation will still be available, but in different forms. You probably won't have a car, but then if we stop surfacing the roads with petroleum and concrete, you couldn't go by automobile anyway.
5. Who can say what is the best tool design? And how can everyone afford only the best?
The best will be chosen by design competition. The top ten designs developed into prototypes. The prototypes tested. Then the best will be chosen by synergic consensus. The standard for synergic society is "dymaxion". The most for the least. The best products will also be the least expensive to create. Many of these tools will be available from the CommUnity tool center and shops for occasional use. You may only need them sometimes. If Humanity as Community agrees that you should have exclusive use of a tool they will provide on to you permanently. If it is something, you want exclusive use of just for for your own convenience, than you can purchase it by exchanging some of your property.
6. Will we be giving up freedom of choice since we can't go joy riding instead of engaging in "mental" activities? Maybe we will have electric powered ATVs or could grow our own personal supply of biofuel for use in a "dirt bike".
All actions that do not injure Humanity as Individuals, Humanity as Community, the viability and biodiversity of Life and/or the Planet are permitted.
Hank back in the high desert
Thanks to Allen and Hank for their questions.
Timothy
A Synergic Future, A Synergic Future -II, Ortegrity, What Is Wrong with Making Money?
|
|
|
Dee Hock writes: Everywhere our institutions go they take their giant — mechanistic, Industrial Age organizational concept — with them. No matter how we try to suppress our problems with Industrial Age techniques, they reemerge in different dress or form, more complex and virulent than ever. Something is deeply, fundamentally wrong. No matter how many technological miracles we perform, no matter how sophisticated the virtual worlds we create, no matter how many atoms we crack, no matter how much genetic code we splice, no matter how many space probes we launch, things will get progressively worse until we discern and deal with that fundamental institutional problem. In truth, there are no problems "out there." And there are no experts "out there" who could solve them if there were. The problem is "in here," in the consciousness of writer and reader, of you and me. It is in the depths of the collective consciousness of the species. When that consciousness begins to understand and grapple with the false Industrial Age concepts of organization to which it clings; when it is willing to risk loosening the hold of those concepts and embrace new possibilities; when those possibilities engage enough minds, new patterns will emerge and we will find ourselves on the frontier of institutional alternatives ripe with hope and rich with possibilities. (09/20/02) | |
|
|
|
John Brand writes: Some friends of mine told me of a wonderful weekend they spent at a Bed and Breakfast in the Texas Hill Country. They took advantage of the available hot tub. Now they did not tell me that they enjoyed this little escapade "au naturel." But let's just assume they did - it certainly adds a little spice to our imagination. They did confide that they had a good bottle of wine which they thoroughly enjoyed emptying. Then in the midst of this Bacchanalian venture they started singing Southern Baptist hymns. Now there can be nothing more incongruous than singing Southern Baptist hymns while drinking wine in a hot tub. The participants don't even have to be in their birthday suits to highlight the polarity of this scene. Those readers unfamiliar with Southern Baptist mores need to know that good Southern Baptists do not imbibe and cavort around in hot tubs. It just ain't done! To be in this sinful state and sing hymns is the height of contradiction. Does it take too much of an imagination that my friends in this joyous state of abandonment were entertaining further thoughts of personal physical intimacy? Not in my book it doesn't. While their minds were anticipating earthly pleasures, their voices sang hallelujahs to God. I submit to you this a parable of the schizoid condition of present-day America. I am not saying that enjoyment of life and spirituality are mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact, when enjoying a beautiful sunset or a Rubens painting, Beethoven's Emperor Concerto or moments of intimacy with my wife, I experience a profound sense of spirituality. I am saying that cavorting around and singing Baptist hymns are two totally incompatible activities. I am suggesting that much of present-day America finds itself in such a schizoid state. We fly flags everywhere to evidence our patriotism. With sincere feelings we recite the Pledge of Allegiance. We proclaim with pride "…with liberty and justice for all." But then we say, "Whoa, we don't want liberty and justice for those who criticize the President." (09/20/02) | |
|
|
|
New York Times -- Sakhalin Island in Russia's far east has more recently acquired a reputation for its clean offshore waters and its rich store of crab, herring and cod. Nowadays, it also stands at the center of a fight over how multinational companies should extract oil and gas along a shoreline as sensitive as any in Alaska. A recent Wall Street Journal investigation suggested that international oil and gas consortiums — including Exxon Mobil and the Royal Dutch/Shell Group — have failed to take many of the precautions at Sakhalin that would be required to protect the environment in America. If a double standard is allowed to govern exploration and drilling off Russia's shores, Russia, the global environment and even the industry itself will be poorly served. Russia's environment is still suffering from a Soviet industrial policy that plundered natural resources in ways not seen in the West since the start of the industrial revolution. ... If Russia is a cheap date for the Western oil interests who were rebuffed in Alaska, they must be careful not to abuse this distant spot. That would spoil the environment far beyond Sakhalin. (09/20/02) | |
9:45:36 AM 
|
