Intentional-Communities
In this discussion, Nanook ( italics) is talking with Father Vincent ( + cross symbol), George ( % yin yang symbol), and Ben ( & ).

Intentional communities

+ “So, again, what can be done about all of this? I think something from Ebenstein can help us. Let’s see… Page 112”

“Karl Marx’s analysis of society was set forth in his economic interpretation of history: The production of the goods and services that support human life and the exchange of those goods and services are the bases of all social processes and institutions. Marx did not claim that the economic factor is the only one that goes into the making of history; he argued that it is the most important one, the foundation upon which is erected the superstructure of culture, law, and government, buttressed by corresponding political, social, religious, literary, and artistic ideologies.

Marx described the relations between people’s material conditions of life and their ideas by saying that ‘IT IS NOT THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF MEN WHICH DETERMINES THEIR EXISTENCE, BUT, ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS THEIR SOCIAL EXISTENCE WHICH DETERMINES THEIR CONSCIOUSNESS.’

+ “In other words, people don’t sit down and determine, philosophically, what kind of world they would like to have, and then create that world. Instead, their philosophy of the world gets pulled along by the flow of life. The images of the world that people see create the philosophy of life that people believe. They become what they see, what they hear and what they experience.”

& “Bingo! And that’s what we have to CHANGE!”

A3 development

% “Exactly. Your statement is true because of the domination of A2 thinking throughout the growth of civilization. Remember, A3 thinking is pretty recent. A3s appeared on the scene around 10,000 BC and enabled the big societies to develop. But their value has never been understood. Their contributions were accepted, but only in limited form. But while the achievements of ancient cultures were incredible, they were still small. When A3 brains evolved, villages came into being. 5000 years later, cities as large as 100,000 people existed. The technology was still primitive. But they still didn’t even have coins, which only appeared about 2000BC. By 200 AD, Rome had more than one million people, and substantial technology. But it was still primitive by today’s standards. 1600 years later, at the dawn of the nineteenth century, only 3% of the world population still lived in cities. People and information traveled by horse. Industry was primarily agriculture. So, it was still MANAGEABLE with A2 principles. This has radically changed in modern times. It is predicted that by 2000, more than 50% of the world will live in cities, with very complex communications and products. Worldwide decisions will be able to be made in seconds. A2 principles will no longer be able to manage the resources of the world or the clash of cultures. Society now needs to view the entire world as a single INTENTIONAL COMMUNITY, all in one boat, or they will all go overboard together.”

+ “The race is on! Will society be able to change before the population get’s out of control and the resources are depleted?”

Legacy problem – need to change our most fundamental beliefs and systems

& “So, if the world does get its act together, where do they start? I think it means going right to the foundation – the World Constitution. But I’m not the first person to think this. I stand on some pretty tall shoulders. Let me begin with Rousseau.”

“. . it is against the nature of the body politic for the sovereign power to impose on itself any law which it cannot break.”

& “The U.S. Constitution is a daring and courageous document because it does allow for continuing change, even of the form of government itself, if the people so wish. But the changes we need now will be practically impossible because they challenge our most basic assumptions. And not only are these basic philosophical ASSUMPTIONS, they have already been carved into everything we do. They are our LEGACY. But our instruments, our indicators, are telling us we have to change MOST of our MOST fundamental attitudes. This isn’t easy to do, even if one of the indicators is a HUGE flashing sign that says, ‘IF YOU DON’T DO THIS, YOU ARE GOING TO DIE!’ The A2 mind is a mind of denial. It’s a mind that wants to wait until water lilies are growing around your own dock before you put out any effort to change. And that will surely be too late.”

Difficulty Introducing a new world order

“So, are you saying that if we write a book and put all the things we’ve discovered in it, no one will listen?”

% “Bingo!”

& “Hey!”

% “Sorry Ben; couldn’t resist. Actually, not quite. What this says is that societies who already have the largest investment in the world will be the ones most likely to fall behind. That’s why history is littered with fallen empires. So, the three of us agree that the U.S. is not likely to remain the leader during the next dark ages. It may re-emerge in some distant future. More likely, the new leader will be a country that is now seen as relatively simple. One with a lot of natural resources but not a lot of infrastructure in place that eats up energy or introduces inefficiency.”

& “What drives me crazy is how long society has been warned about these things without responding. Here. Let me read from Niccolo Machiavelli’s book The Prince. Which, by the way, was written in 1513. But even he was aware of how difficult change is.”

“Hereditary states, then, which are accustomed to the rule of the line of their princes, are much more easily maintained than new ones for it is sufficient for the prince not to transgress the customs of his predecessors and to meet emergencies as they come. It is in the new monarchies that difficulties are found… men like to change their masters, hoping to improve their lot; this makes them take arms against their rulers only to be disillusioned when they later see by experience that they have worsened their state.

It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institutions and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new ones. …the nature of people is fickle, and it is easy to persuade them of something but difficult to keep them in that persuasion. … how we live is so different from how we ought to live that he who studies what ought to be rather than what is done will learn the way to his downfall rather than his preservation. A man striving in every way to be good will meet his ruin among the great number who are not good.”

% “And how could he ever be more right about the corruption we now find ourselves in.”

“Yeah! But what does that say about the four of us?”

& “We’re DOOMED! % “We’re DOOMED! + “We’re DOOMED!

They all broke out laughing. Ben flipped through the binder where he found Cotton’s article.

& “Here’s another quote from the past. The London Economist in 1847:”

“It may be hurtful to the pride of statesmen to discover how little they can really do . . . to eradicate misery, to alleviate suffering, and improve society. Yet – so it is – the progress of civilization shows more and more how few and simple are the real duties of a government; and how impossible it is to add to those duties without inflicting permanent mischief on a community . . . But the aim of all statesmen who have acquired a higher reputation has been to remove regulations and restrictions imposed by others – to remedy the errors of former statesmen by removing old regulations, and not by imposing new ones.”

% “I relate this to my statement about the inability of A2 thinking to deal with complex problems. While people were, brain wise, just as smart a hundred years ago as we are now, they didn’t have the ability to collect data the way we do today. So, they made a lot of decisions by principle. Which, just like today, is mostly superstition.”

+ “There is an amazing irony to this discussion. You know how the Christian creationists have been pushing the concept of INTELLIGENT DESIGN of the universe, which has been debunked. Well, now, we are saying that Intelligent Design will actually be NECESSARY for civilization to survive. And, of course, it has to come from human civilization. TO SURVIVE, WE HAVE TO DESIGN OURSELVES!”