Solutions from facing and understanding the obstacles

Facing and understanding the obstacles (including "the enemy") on the way to the Possible Good World (PGW) is a strategy that can lead to hope and success:
"I am not trying to solve the problem but trying to state it..." Einstein (paraphrased). Correctly stating a problem provides the necessary clues that lead to solutions, resolutions or dissolution.

What seems to be missing from so many projects, including WorldShif2012, is reference to systems thinking and the thinking tools it provides for understanding systemic resistance and "whole systems redesign". As a result we, as activists, can not even learn from past failures, of which there are far too many. But that is a long story for now, so just a warning from Stafford Beer's Beyond Dispute: "...our very way of speaking underwrites the system that needs reform..."

The hope that arises from understanding "the enemy" is the realisation that it has weaknesses. The chief weakness is the illegitimacy or inappropriateness of its underlying and supporting conceptual framework. So here is another ignored advice of twenty years ago from Willis Harman's Global Mind Change---The Promise of the Last Years of the Twentieth Century):
"...no matter how powerful the economic or political or even military institution, it persists because it has legitimacy, and that legitimacy comes fro the perception of the people. People give legitimacy, and they can take it away. A challenge to legitimacy is probably the most powerful force for change to be found in history."

Comment

You need to be a member of WorldShift 2012 to add comments!

Join WorldShift 2012

Comment by Janos Abel on November 10, 2010 at 6:01pm: Replying to Ferdinand November 8, 2010

Hello and welcome back.
I think I know where there is some misunderstanding. By justice I meant "natural" justice, not justice in the leqal sense. You meant the same think by mystical (moral) considerations.

We agree that it is not necessarily so now but it could and should be so.
You rightly point out that "There are people on this planet who have a lot more and others have much less, this is not rightful... How come a private company can claim an oil field and exploit this for their own profit?" This may be legal but not fair, just, or right.

This is the burden of the blog title. But my perception is that a large number of good people are not facing the need to remove such legalized injustice.

This is well put:

To start the dialogue: -First of all we should take a look at what the world (mother earth) as a whole can produce (generously gives us) in a sustainable way. -Secondly, we need to make clear how much of this any (human) being needs to live healthily.
-Thirdly, we should take a look at the number of (human) beings and divide what we found in the first place by this.

I think we will see that there is more than enough for everybody. A rightful share means something like an equal share (and not more). There are people on this planet who have a lot more and others have much less, this is not rightful.
In brief justice requires that the economic value of the free gift of nature, like oil deposits, should belong in equal measure to every human being alive.
In a modern society the socioeconomic expression of this principle is a kind of unconditional basic income. If some people make better use of their share of nature's gifts the will be more wealthy than others. This is where we need to be quite practical (having established the underlying moral principles).

Lets say I rent a plot of land from a community land bank. I should pay the same price to the community whether I build a small house for myself only, or a big house to let parts of it to several people and families.

This is called Land Value Taxation and the economics of it have been established by people like Henry George.

This kind of practical thinking is missing from sites like this. At least, I can not see any discussions about this kind of thinking about the world we need to shift to by 2012.

Comment by Ferdinand Zanda on November 8, 2010 at 9:16am: Dear Janos,
Why do mystical viewpoints need not enter in economic justice? In my opinion justice (economical or other) has everything to do with the mystical. For money is a representation of energy. When a human works he or she let energy flow through, this effort is besides practical also mystical (consider the most simple body movement and try to grasp it's origin).
But anyway you already said it:
-if a worker does not get the rightful share of the wealth his work creates, that may be legal under the current rules

With justice I meant these current rules as they are the instrument of justice. If what we call justice is practiced like it's done nowadays then there is a problem. Justice in the practical sense, for a large part unfair. That's why I say Justice and Fairness don't go together. They should, but I notice they don't. That doesn't mean they can't. For humanity to go forward it would be good if Justice and Fairness go together (again). That's something to put effort to.

Now what is a rightful share?

To start the dialogue:
-First of all we should take a look at what the world (mother earth) as a whole can produce (generously gives us) in a sustainable way.
-Secondly, we need to make clear how much of this any (human) being needs to live healthily.
-Thirdly, we should take a look at the number of (human) beings and divide what we found in the first place by this.

I think we will see that there is more than enough for everybody. A rightful share means something like an equal share (and not more). There are people on this planet who have a lot more and others have much less, this is not rightful.

How come a private company can claim an oil field and exploit this for their own profit? Isn't this everybody's oil? The same with land. I think every human being should be entitled to the free use of an equal share of land. Of course this isn't simple because of different qualities of different pieces of land but it's doable.

Comment by Gyula Julius Reznicsek on November 5, 2010 at 9:51am: Overcome the Misguided Crowds ! ! !
We Cannot Trust
the Global Compromises
The Idea of the Unions of the Town-Contries :)

LIMITS OF VINDICABILITY ! ! !
ACCORDANCE WITH THE ENVIRONMENT ! ! !
KEEPING IT ! ! ! LIVE HUMANELY ! ! !

The flame of humanity which burns in us ! ! !
"There is nothing more powerful
than an idea whose time has come..." Victor Hugo

...and yet shout YES ! ! !
towards the silver Moon
while standing on the shore of the lake...
"Even if you miss it you will land among the stars" with the
World - Protected Regions - Movement (W. P. R. M.)
World - Protected Regions - Movement (W. P. R. M.)

Comment by Janos Abel on October 6, 2010 at 3:18pm: Ferdinand, sorry for this long delay. Hope you are still around.

It seems that I do not see what you mean by saying justice and fairness do not go together. To use a concrete example, if a worker does not get the rightful share of the wealth his work creates, that may be legal under the current rules but it is still unjust as well as unfair.

The next question then is what is a rightful share? Then we have to delve into economic justice consideration into which mystical viewpoints need not enter.

Comment by Ferdinand Zanda on January 11, 2010 at 5:06am: I understand what you mean, let me put it in less words. The real practical solution is:

-Make clear where things go wrong in the misuse of power and privilege, in a fundamental way.
-The people should stand up and say: We forgive you your faults and now we want something else done.
-And let the hearing proceed "at the bar of justice and fairness".

I'm all for that but I see a problem in the justice department. There are laws which make unfair practices legal. So justice and fairness in your proposal don't go together. Do you understand what I mean or should I elaborate?

By the way, I believe the mystical can be quitte practical. And everything we don't understand in life is mysticism becoming practical. And with that I also mean 'the enemy'. In fact I believe the need to come up with a solution for the problems we are facing today is all about reconnecting to mysticism. That's the only way we can see the world as a whole.
And there your'e right again. Their unwise use can and likely will become a problem. But that's a whole new ball game. One we won't be playing if we don't solve this game first.

Comment by Janos Abel on January 10, 2010 at 6:23pm: Hello Ferdinand,

I mean something quite practical by way of confronting the misuse of power and privilege.
We are complicit in the existence of abusive institutions through giving them legitimacy. An extreme example from history is of the rise of Nazi Germany after more than ten years of bungling of relations between the victors and losers in World War I. More recently we have the spectre of terrorism as a result of not "draining the swamp" of abject poverty and injustice in parts of the world.

I am not sure about rising above mind and reason. Their unwise use can be a problem but I do not think we can do without these human capacities. Gandhi told us about the need to stand up to injustice and abuse of authority. I just mean, for example, instead of demonising landlords and bankers---as many on the left do--- we stand up and say, "we are the people, and you do us wrong. While forgiving you for doing it in the past, we will not stand for it any longer". And let the hearing proceed "at the bar of justice and fairness".

This is the kind of thing I mean by the title of the thread, "Solutions from facing and understanding the obstacles [and 'the enemy']" --- quite practical and non-mystical.

Comment by Ferdinand Zanda on January 6, 2010 at 5:28pm: The picture of the archangel Michael comes to mind. There are two pictures in fact. The one is where he suppresses the 'enemy' (not killing it). And the other one the is the picture of him with a balance where the human soul is weighed. This is quite the same you are saying of not eliminating and a fair trial at the bars of justice.

So do you mean that we need to rise above our mind, our reason and see evil as a part of us? And then let us be our own judge? That is what these pictures tell me.

Comment by Janos Abel on January 6, 2010 at 4:35pm: Replying to Ferdinand:

I put the word in quotes to indicate that I mean something other than the usual adversary that has to be hated, eliminated, killed, subdued, etc. In this I am a Gandhian and believe that in some ways we are part of the "enemy" and somehow contribute to its existence. The right attitude is respect, desire to understand, mutual search for resolution of apparent conflicts of interest. Instead of the aggressive desire to eliminate we need to learn to see beyond the immediate conflict to the underlying thinking that gives rise to it.

Demonising "the enemy" is in my opinion a very poor strategy. As an example, it is one thing to identify bankers as a group and land owners as another being the privileged beneficiaries of control over natural resources (in particular, land as living space) and over the right to create and issue a nation's money (credit) supply—the two fundamental monopolies. But the problem is really the systemic design fault that crept into the process of reorganising social relations while the Western world transited from feudalism to the next state of socio-economic organisation.
Human individuals are always enmeshed in the institutions they create. These institutions become parts of a holistic system with its own dynamics. So the relevant area of investigation is why the system encourages certain types of behaviour in people who operate within the various parts of the system as a whole.
Attachment to vested interest and unfair advantage on the part of individuals an groups is a problem, but the remedy lies in a fair “trial” at the bar of justice and fairness, not in witch hunts and seeking people with evil intentions.

Comment by Ferdinand Zanda on January 5, 2010 at 6:19am: Janos,
Could you please make clear what you see as "the enemy"? Your point is a good one. When people accept the fact we have a problem, we should gather and put all 'the shit' on the table. But that's a whole lot. And there are principles here, producing the shit. It's these principles we have to put on the table. The problems seem so big that an individual is easily discouraged to take on action.
So facing, understanding and reducing the obstacles to a few principles is a good help to come up with a solution. And it sounds like you have a deeper understanding of this. Please tell us?

Comment by Ferdinand Zanda on January 5, 2010 at 4:12am: Janos Abel has added you as a friend on WorldShift 2012
Hello Ferdinand,
Glad to make your acquaintance.
A dialogoue is need here on WorldShift in order to develop an applied version of what you said about self and collaborative empowerment.
---
I'm also glad to make yours, we are in this together and that has to be the way out. There is a lot of discussion on the internet and i'm glad you see the need for dialogue. There is a big difference. This has to do with the development of consciousness. In our school systems we are prepared to divide. The accent lies on rational thinking. Employment of fantasy is structurally discouraged. People who survived school with fantasy are artists and strangely admired.
Because time is closing in on us we can not just put our bets on changing the schools. I think it's time people of all ages work together.