In the other thread Richard said:

I completely agree that being sensitive to Others, while it is often, a "gift of the least among us," is not the same idea as the plethora of goods, ideals and actions that "the least among us" bring to OUR culture on a daily basis.

More amazing is that most of the people who I know who have little, or nothing, including rights, education, and most of the other benefits of OUR culture, make these gifts to US, almost on a minute-by-minute basis without complaint, or revolution. That's truly an amazing gift.

There are two different ways that I think about this from a "System point of view". First, is the issue of conflict and scarcity. Resources are only scarce because we fail to include all those who might be able to contribute.

We believe that conflict is the natural state of affairs because We believe that resources are scarce and there will always be conflict over who gets what share of those resources. Neither belief is necessarily true, both conflict and scarcity derive from the lack of adequate relationships within the Whole set of relationships. With a better map, We can create the additional relationships that We need. See: Using a Better Map

The other way that it seems to apply is that we all start out as "the least" - with every birth there is a new start from scratch - and we can think of that as an 80-90 year opportunity for building bridges - so that each of us contributes more and more value to the flows.

I'm afraid this story is a bit off topic, but it's what came to mind.

My mother taught first-grade after her five kids all were in school. For the most part of her career she taught in schools in very poor neighborhoods in the Carolinas. When we moved to Pennsylvania we lived at the end of a street by an elementary school. She taught a half year at this decidedly middle-class school.

One of the methods my mother followed in maths instruction was to disassemble the arithmetic workbooks, then stapling related lessons to make a smaller book. Kids could proceed at their own pace. She erased incorrect answers, so every kid's workbook consisted of pages filed with correct answers produced by them. She would often pair students who had succeeded with the concepts with students struggling with them. The result was kids all liked arithmetic.

In her class was a very nice boy, I don't remember his name, but I can conjure his first-grader face. He was very good looking, just a little taller than all the other boys, and very smart.

Once my mother set up a sort of Olympics. She organized a bunch of activities outside where kids could excel. She made a bunch of ribbons to award to the winners. Among the boys, the fair-haired boy won every contest. But he kept one ribbon and gave all the others away.

The boy's behavior always impressed me. I'm not sure why he did it? I am sure my mother didn't encourage him to do so, she was competitive and would have gladly kept all the ribbons she won. People are social creatures, and in some way giving his ribbons away must have had a social context; he must have imagined some social utility in his action.

Six and seven year olds are different, people grow and how we imagine the world becomes qualitatively different as we do. I wonder whether the context of my mother's classroom management played a role? Students were encouraged to help others learn and succeed, for example the arithmetic workbooks.

Giving away the ribbons makes sense in a social matrix where the activity of learning is at once a personal and social responsibility.

Kids could feel good about breezing through the math, as many did. The basic deal with the workbooks was that the work had to be 100% correct. Finding additional pages was a challenge for my mother, because she was not allowed to let them proceed into second, third and even fourth grade work, as some of them could have easily handled. But the kids who got it and worked fast did get privileges, they could read a book, or do other projects, or assist other kids.

The important thing, I think, is that helping wasn't really seen as status, rather as a new challenge. The kids knew that they had to find a way to show the others how they could get every problem right.

Another story: when my mother was dying she had periods of great lucidity and periods of great confusion; and periods that seemed hard to characterize. "It's uncanny, when I look at you now," she said "I see you when you were a baby, and a little boy, and a teenager, as a young and the way you look now. I don't just imagine it all those time, I SEE them when I look at you." I'm not sure what she was seeing, but it seems a bit like the recognition we all feel when we see old pictures of ourselves. There's no mistaking in our minds who that is in the picture.

The "least among us" are often very young or very old.

One of my favorite songs about the gifts the least among us bring is by Marie Daulne of Zap Mama, Nostalgie Amoureuse. The song begins with the protagonist walking early in the morning and being a little lost finds herself among street people sleeping in the cold.

I wasn’t comfortable and I judged in instantly what I saw: stinking filth condemned

Then one of them turns to her and says:

Hey! Don’t go losing your today Hiding your soul in your solitude I’ve skipped from society a talking heart keeps us true

Your face is my light he says The day shines better for the view The birds talk among themselves Their words tell tales of you.

David Braden said:

There are two different ways that I think about this from a "System point of view". First, is the issue of conflict and scarcity. Resources are only scarce because we fail to include all those who might be able to contribute.

I'm not certain exactly what you are talking about when you say, "this" in the paragraph above. Are you saying that the difference between "being sensitive to Others," and the "gift of the least among us," is caused by an improper, or incomplete views of "conflict and scarcity?"

Or are you saying that the truly revolutionary acts of service performed every day by poor people all over the world is only revolutionary and miraculous because of something to do with "conflict and scarcity?"

My point has little to do with "conflict and scarcity." I am saying straight out that the world is carried upon the backs of those who have little, or nothing. We are not even born into this troubled vale with anything remotely like equality of burden. While most of US start from scratch at birth, "some pigs are more equal" right out of the sow.

We believe that conflict is the natural state of affairs because We believe that resources are scarce and there will always be conflict over who gets what share of those resources. Neither belief is necessarily true, both conflict and scarcity derive from the lack of adequate relationships within the Whole set of relationships. With a better map, We can create the additional relationships that We need. See: Using a Better Map.

I agree that OUR ideas of "scarcity and conflict derive from the lack of adequate relationships within the Whole set of relationships." I also know that whatever MY relationship to the "Whole set of relationships," when MY child dies of measles, or TB, or simple water-borne diseases, MY basic concern is not about "adequate relationships within the Whole set of relationships." After my grief, MY concern is only that MY next child not die the same way.

I do not believe that "conflict is the natural state of affairs," nor do I believe that conflict is necessarily a negative thing. Further, I do not believe that scarcity of resources has to do solely with how WE think about "conflict and scarcity." I believe that conflict and scarcity thinking are deliberately used, in many cases, to manufacture conflict and scarcity.

I also believe that some folks are just mean, petty and stingy. THEIR misery and poverty of spirit is not necessarily a question of good and evil, so much as it is an unfortunate mixture of poor upbringing and a lack of introspection with regards to Others. Some folks generate inequality through a sense of entitlement.

I know that WE can bring any sort of habit, good, or bad, back to the systems-thinking that you are describing, but WE could frame ALL the same values in Marxist thought, in sun-shiny thinking about capitalism, or even in a Freudian frame. How WE think about poverty and inequality isn't nearly as important as what steps WE take today to combat them.

The other way that it seems to apply is that we all start out as "the least" - with every birth there is a new start from scratch - and we can think of that as an 80-90 year opportunity for building bridges - so that each of us contributes more and more value to the flows.

WE can certainly think of OUR birth as "an 80-90 year opportunity for building bridges," but most of US are too busy surviving day-to-day to see anything, except the next crisis, economic, social, or psychological, in front of US.

It's a beautiful story John.

Richard said:

How WE think about poverty and inequality isn't nearly as important as what steps WE take today to combat them.

Here we disagree. And this is the exact point I want to explore. If We are trying to solve poverty and inequality through combat are we not seeing the world as a struggle between good and evil? Would it not be more useful to understand the "sets of connections", or bridges, that are missing and work to create those?

I think I have other ways to say that and I will think about it some more - but, I wonder if that contrast is helpful.

I have been thinking and want to play with the ecosystem metaphor some more:

An ecosystem is a "self-organizing system" based on a rule that each individual of each species will seek the food it needs (including plants competing for access to sunlight). Those species that survive and reproduce are said to "fit" in the system. Species do not survive that lose their fit and become extinct but it cannot be said that a species went extinct because it lost a struggle between good and evil. Under the right circumstances, this self organization can do amazing things like rain forests and coral reefs.

Humans are in the first instance a part of the ecosystem. However, being conscious, we form organizations to over come our limitations as organisms. It is the competition between these organizations that forms our understanding of the world, and all of our institutions are structured as a means to protect Us from Them. The process has resulted in larger and larger organizations until we now have planetary organizations and we can start thinking in terms of the fact that there is no more "them", we are all in this together, there are no more outsiders.

So, if we start talking about "combating poverty and inequality" we would first need to define who is the enemy. If human conscious systems are analogous to the ecosystem, it is self organizing following the simple rule that each individual tends to the bridges that provides what they need and desire - and does not spend much if any thought on why other people do not have as many or as good bridges. If there were someone actively preventing the poor and unequal from forming their own bridges (as in corruption etc.) we can actively work to stop that practice but we are not going to make much headway telling people that their bridges are giving them too much and therefore they "owe" something to people with fewer bridges.

On the other hand, if we understand that reality is the end result of all the value flowing over all the bridges, then we can see that it benefits us all if more people and more species have more bridges to contribute more value to the system as a whole. Instead of Us being good and Them being bad, We can ask "does this action add value or deplete value?" The answer to that is not always easy but at least we can include everyone in the conversation.

One of the problems of this shift from a self-organizing (semi-conscious?) system to a fully conscious system is that our organizations have grown so large and complex that the result of change at the planetary or national level cannot be predicted. Therefore, I am advocating conscious change at the community level - creating new bridges so that more and more people can contribute value to the system. And in that analysis, neither more charity nor expansion of the "market" provides the answer. We need new forms of organization that provide the support people need to take responsibility for their own lives.

And one more thing :)

sensitivity to the needs of others is about owing something to someone else for whatever reason - and I am not saying that those of us who prosper in the system do not owe anything to those who have not prospered, but . . .

honoring the gift of the least among us is about how all of us benefit when each of us contributes - and what WE can do to help more and more people become contributors.

I appreciate, David, that you consider the worldviews and models which emerge from metaphors of good and evil as pathological.

How to escape such pervasive metaphors isn't immediately obvious to me. For example David's view about the metaphor of good and evil strikes me as a value judgment. David proposes that a more systematic view of ourselves and our positions in the world is "better." This strikes me as a reasonable premise. But in debate it seems that the worldviews emerging from metaphors of good and evil are "bad." Wide and divergent subjects can be dismissed because they are thought faulty by virtue of a connection to a bad metaphor.

I'll point out that the stories in my post about a young boy, my dying mother, and a street person, were intended as a way to convey that the least among us are often loved by us and capable of loving us.

Evolutionary biologist often go great lengths to provide reasons why people are the way they are. And there are at least a half dozen schools of thought along the lines of Evolutionary Psychology. The area of study is so large and clearly there are some very good ideas, but some of the ideas strike me as awful. A recent post by Chris Clarke, Belief in Evolutionary Psychology May Be Hardwired, Study Says is amusing, and suggests that skepticism is in order.

I agree with RicH's more restrictive view of the quality of choices available to us in contrast to your more expansive view. I think that a more systemic view reveals that when it come to "the system" we're puny.

In 3DN Local Organizing and the Planetary Mind David wrote: "We tend to think of those structures as 'the powers that be' yet all economic and political power resides ultimately in the individual. See Using a Better Map No organization or structure has any power except that which we cede to it." I find this assertion remarkable, and hard to believe. From a systemic view, how is it that an individual welds such power?

RicH wrote, "I also believe that some folks are just mean, petty and stingy." Indeed the mean and stingy are often quite successful in the human ecosystem. We're also quite accustomed to explain such behavior in evolutionary terms. The debates about Herbert Spencer and Social Darwinism show that people have been trying to formulate a more systematic view for a long time. In our attempts at explanation nice people never seem to fair very well.

One problem with our explaining is the confusion that our individual conscious purpose brings to our understanding of evolutionary biology. It's only common sense to think that meanness and stinginess are fit. And as people like Allan Greenspan seem to see it that "parasites" like little boys, dying mothers, and street people deserve to die. Really in evolution it's the survival of the species that matters more than any individual's fitness. The survival of a species is of populations over time. There's something akin to wisdom inherent in the behavior of successful populations over time; that is the calculus involves much more than individual striving.

People love. There probably are good reasons for it, but I'm sure I haven't found really satisfying explanations. Blaise Pascal wrote: "The heart has its reasons, of which reason knows nothing" Among those we love the most are often the least among us. I think that love is very important. I value my loving connections very much.

I also think that it's not only the quantity of connections-bridges--which is important but their quality. Good and evil may well be, as David suggests, a metaphorical way of thinking which tends to habitually create muddles. Nonetheless, some way of talking about essential qualities is needed.

David Braden said:

It's a beautiful story John.

Richard said:

How WE think about poverty and inequality isn't nearly as important as what steps WE take today to combat them.

Here we disagree. And this is the exact point I want to explore. If We are trying to solve poverty and inequality through combat are we not seeing the world as a struggle between good and evil? Would it not be more useful to understand the "sets of connections", or bridges, that are missing and work to create those?

I think I have other ways to say that and I will think about it some more - but, I wonder if that contrast is helpful.

Combat is an unfortunate word choice. I believe that I do understanbd the "sets of connections" that are at work to create poverty and inequality. I believe those "connections" are deliberate and only of value to the side that is on top. Like it, or not, sides exist now. The struggle between the haves and the have-nots is age-old and very deliberate. It is carried on today because it works for the few heavily-armed villains who own it.

My point is very simple: More study and talk about inequality and poverty is not helping. Except where WE are helping Others to understand what needs to be done, or actually helping THEM do it, the time for study and talk has passed.

I do not believe that there is anything left that WE do not understand about the whys-and-wherefores of poverty and inequality. I do not believe that WE are missing any bridges, or clues. WE know exactly what to do; WE know how to do it.

WE are not doing what needs to be done.

The system of poverty and inequality that WE now have is an ancient system, deliberately developed by King and Church, and before that by men on horseback with spears. It is not an accident that the strong and the rich ALL over the planet steal from the weak and the poor.

It is a very deliberate system that has functioned, such as it does, from the first walled-cities. It is not a lack of understanding about those "connections" that keeps US from change. It is the deliberate murder and marginalization of those who would change things.

Talking about the philosophy of change, will not bring change at all.

Folks will nod THEIR heads and agree with you, David, but THEY will walk off and do exactly the same thing. WE give the lion's share of all OUR goods and riches to the fellas on horseback with spears. That the horses have changed to Humvees and the spears to Tomahawk missiles does not affect the poverty and inequality that results from armed men robbing US.

David, please do not feel that I am remotely attacking you. I believe that WE need YOUR viewpoint and ALL the other views out there. I just don't think that I need to know the reason for poverty and inequality to "combat" them. I need to put a pump in the ground. I need to build a school. I need to help convicts re-enter society. I need to volunteer at MY local soup kitchen. I need to mediate between people.

I need to pick up the starfish and throw it back into the sea.

WE are not going to stop the age-old theft of the fruits of OUR labor by building bridges to armed men, and now armed women as well, unfortunately. WE need to take ALL OUR money back from villains who own the Church and State. WE need to stop THEM from coming into OUR towns and villages to steal OUR harvests and OUR children.

I am absolutely rapt to talk about better more meaningful ways to stop armed men and women from robbing US.

John Powers said:

I think that a more systemic view reveals that when it come to "the system" we're puny.

John, I disagree. WE are El Sistema. WE are also the answer to the System.

Everywhere on the globe The System is in retreat. It is not a full-blown rout yet. The enemy is not running headlong before US in shambles, but the corner has been turned. The first time WE gathered together to change things, the System of God and Country began to fail.

Keep hope. The cowards in THEIR castles and churches are everywhere on notice and in retreat.

David is right in believing that what we resist persists, but MANY of US are not resisting anything. WE are quietly building a new System.

The real problem with fellas like ME, and ALL other writers, and anarchists, is that the new System scares US as much as the old. IF Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Gandhi and George Washington were running the new System -- and everything were guaranteed to be hunky-dory, I would still worry.

And probably write the same kinda crap, unfortunately.

Love to you both, RicHIe

Great responses John and Richard. I have a great deal that I want to share – but I don't want to dump too much on you at once. Do not focus on the way the objects conflict with one another – focus on the flow of value that results in each object's existence. All of the words that I might use to describe what I see from a value flow point of view already have meaning to you as you view the world from “objective reality”. There are five general approaches I have used to try and describe the difference – and if I have learned anything it is patience. I hope you will have patience with me as well.

John said:

I appreciate, David, that you consider the worldviews and models which emerge from metaphors of good and evil as pathological.

Pathological implies that I have categorized it as bad or (evil)? Mental models and maps based on the good vs. evil metaphor predominate in the world. The question is the accuracy with which those models will predict the consequences of each choice you or I would make. I have suggested that a model based on the ecosystem metaphor allows for more accurate predictions – but right now we would have to take into account – in that prediction - that most everyone else is making prediction from the old model. Further, I have no illusion that my mental map is any where near complete.

I observe that much conflict in the System results from one group of people believing a thing is good at the same time another group of people believes the same thing is bad. I also find that this is related to what I have called “institutional imperatives”. There are things for each organization that “the members” must believe to be “good” in order for the organization to continue to exist. At the point where that requires “combat” with other organizations I think we need to look for a better mental model.

I am particularly interested in how these conflicting institutional imperatives play out in the “planetary mind” (that which WE believe collectively – what is acceptable belief – how belief translates into action in the world.) And how we might educate the planetary mind to move past conflicting institutional imperatives.

I find this assertion (all power resides in the individual) remarkable, and hard to believe. From a systemic view, how is it that an individual welds such power?

In “objective reality” we treat human organizations as objects with a will of their own and with power of their own. If WE can focus on the flow of value, an organization is no more than the collective action of those people who choose to participate (contribute?). Without that individual participation no organization exists. That includes the weekly bridge club and the United States of America – the only difference being the number of participants (and things like “police power” that I won't go into here). Every decision by an organization is made by one or more individual humans. The US decided to go to war in Iraq because enough people chose to vote Republican and because people in the Bush administration chose to assert certain allegations against Sadaam Huessein . . . the cumulative result of individual choices.

There's something akin to wisdom inherent in the behavior of successful populations over time; that is the calculus involves much more than individual striving.

I briefly looked at the Evolutionary Psychology links. I don't think it is all that complicated. Each of us chooses to participate in the organizations that we perceive will meet our needs, or because we don't think we have a choice?. My analysis indicates that poverty and inequality result from people not having adequate organizational choices (and trying to fix that at the national level has not worked) – hence the proposal for the Self-help Corporation / Community Investment Enterprise.

I also think that it's not only the quantity of connections-bridges--which is important but their quality. Good and evil may well be, as David suggests, a metaphorical way of thinking which tends to habitually create muddles. Nonetheless, some way of talking about essential qualities is needed.

The formulation for reality being the end result of all the bridges each of us chooses maintains, is that:

• an exchange of value creates a bridge, and
• the volume and duration of the exchange widen and strengthen the bridge

It is that choice to continue in the exchange that is interesting in terms of “qualities”. In a perfect world we would each choose those bridges that best meet our individual needs. How does that apply to a choice to 1) remain in a dead end job, or 2) participate in a gang or terrorist organization, or 3) keep buying drugs, or . . . I am asserting that change in the world is a function of “creating better choices” if we are to increase value in the System – and that conflict (efforts to stop certain people from maintaining certain bridges) only dissipates value.

Richard said:

I need to build a school. I need to help convicts re-enter society. I need to volunteer at MY local soup kitchen. I need to mediate between people.

Yes, I believe the key is in creating new choices in each locality but I think it will take more dramatic developments than more volunteers at the soup kitchen or even more jobs in the local economy. The description I am using is: Systems of production in which every one can participate – ending poverty – that cooperate with natural processes – healing nature. I think people do not believe that can be done because they cannot see past the objects to the flow of value through the system.

I am absolutely rapt to talk about better more meaningful ways to stop armed men and women from robbing US.

The missing connections – the additional bridges WE need to build for our communities – the way we can honor the gift of the least among us – are forms of organization that provide the support that individuals need to take responsibility for their own lives.

John, I disagree. WE are El Sistema. WE are also the answer to the System.

Yes, we are EL Sistema. But it is not a good system or a bad system or a system with good parts and bad parts – it is a single pattern of value flows. The pattern is created and maintained as a cumulative result of all the bridges each of us choose to maintain. WE can change the pattern through creating new bridges – and that may or may not “stop the flow to armed men and women” - because each of us has to make our own choices – but WE can create choices that better serve OUR needs – and I think that is best done within that locality in which all of the residents share an interest in a healthy local economy and a healthy local ecosystem.

Sorry to ramble on – but each of these excellent questions leads to a different aspect of a whole view of how the world works that I feel like I am very close to sharing. Please feel free to challenge these assertions – poke holes in my logic – point out discrepancies – question formulations, etc.

This is really off point, but I would like to know how you guys make block quotes. I've tried and must be missing something obvious.

I feel quite sure that both David and RicH have a humane vision of who we can be as people, a view which I share. So then when I say that I disagree, I hope it is obvious that those disagreements are small relative to the area of agreement.

I do not think that we are the system. The difficulty with a systemic view of things is that we are confronted with complex interacting systems. Not all of these systems are of human design.

Systems are composed of relationships and these relationships are a looped structure. It probably is obvious that what RicH is calling "EL Sistema" is culture or civilization, and therefore is presumed a human artifact. From that presumption the conclusion "WE are El Sistema." seems to follow. I was thinking of a more expansive "system" and I think I was because of David's encouraging a more ecological perspective.

There still may be a few places on Earth where there are balanced ecosystems that hardly include people. What's notable about theses ecosystems is the equilibrium, or balance, that's maintained over long periods of time. People have a great knack for unbalancing the equilibrium, often with quite harmful effects to the species within the ecosystem, and even to people themselves.

Here I'll certainly agree with David that people don't really intend to f$$k things up, in fact that we don't intend harm seems an important point. We make balanced ecosystems unbalanced intending to do good, or at least for such purposes as having enough to eat and having fire for light and heat. So since we are so well intentioned, when things go to hell, we look outside to place the blame.

David proposes that an ecological metaphor replace the good and evil metaphor. A more systemic line of reasoning seems a reasonable line to follow. The point David makes, if I understand him correctly, is that culture and civilization must operate in a similar way as natural ecosystems. But it seems tricky how to slice out what is human from the world in which we live. For example, consider anthropogenic climate change, the climate system includes people; and likewise our civilization is a part of the climate system.

Not all ecosystems are balanced. I mentioned Elin Whitney-Smith before and I like how she thinks systemically. Her research on Pleistocene extinctions is quite interesting. In short her thesis is that the extinction of giant herbivores in North America coinciding with human migration was not the result of over hunting the herbivores by people. Rather it was the result of people killing off the giant predators. The result of the removal of the predators was that herbivore populations exploded alerting the fauna landscape to an extent there came a time when there were too few herbs to devour.

I'm very much in favor of an abundance model when it come to human interactions, but that is not to deny scarcity. Scarcity is rather fundamental to ecosystems. Populations of species all have a capacity toward over population, that is for their populations to exceed the carrying capacity of the ecological system in which they live. People are obviously a natural species. We also have a consciousness.

How to think ecologically about our systems of thought and culture gets very tricky. It seems to me a problem not to be aware of the larger systems in which we operate. In other words to think in ecological metaphors about our culture as a means to draw a distinction between what's "natural" and what's "synthetic" perpetuates the notion that our consciousness is separate and doesn't refer to the actual ecosystem we inhabit. It's not enough to think in terms of ecological metaphors, we must learn to think ecologically.

John said:

I would like to know how you guys make block quotes. I've tried and must be missing something obvious.

If you put a space before the first word in a paragraph the paragraph will be indented - two spaces indents it further.

So then when I say that I disagree, I hope it is obvious that those disagreements are small relative to the area of agreement.

WE should not expect "agreement" when we are discussing complex systems and how to change them to achieve a particular result. It is only through comparing how we see those interactions that we will come to improve our understanding. I do not think we can come to complete or perfect understanding - WE change the System with every choice WE make - making this the "eternal experiment" - until WE do something really stupid and cause OUR own extinction.

Systems are composed of relationships and these relationships are a looped structure.

Yes, but there is only one system in which matter emerges from energetic systems, life emerges from material systems and consciousness emerges from living systems. See: Theory of Relationships Every thing is related to everything else and is composed of flows. Nature (and humanity according to Our nature) creates structure to direct the flows. If WE continue to view the world as a set of objects from which WE can choose the good ones and destroy the bad ones WE are not going to make it. (there is some Bioneers work about human groups operating as "keystone species" in ecosystems - modifying the environment to increase the natural production of selected other species).

In other words to think in ecological metaphors about our culture as a means to draw a distinction between what's "natural" and what's "synthetic" perpetuates the notion that our consciousness is separate and doesn't refer to the actual ecosystem we inhabit. It's not enough to think in terms of ecological metaphors, we must learn to think ecologically.

You see now that I make no such distinction. Which brings us back to the initial point - it is necessary for US to come to understand and "honor the gift of the least among us." An improved conscious system would implement new structures to maximize utilization of the potential for human consciousness - providing the opportunity for every individual to explore their potential contribution. In an ecosystem, the food web begins and ends with the smallest of creatures that decompose organic matter and make it ready for the next cycle of life. If our goal is the full expression of biological potential - then we should begin by honoring the gift of the least among us.

WE have a dual goal - WE all want both the full expression of biological potential and the full expression of human potential. From the point of view that sees the world as full of competing objects those two goals seem opposed. From a Systems point of view those two goals are potentially complementary.

Okay let me try block quotes. RicHARD wrote:

I do not believe that there is anything left that WE do not understand about the whys-and-wherefores of poverty and inequality. I do not believe that WE are missing any bridges, or clues. WE know exactly what to do; WE know how to do it.

WE are not doing what needs to be done.

Wow! It works, thanks David!

I don't entirely agree with RicHARD. He also wrote:

David is right in believing that what we resist persists, but MANY of US are not resisting anything. WE are quietly building a new System.

On one hand I read what RicH says as: "Stop talking and start doing!" But on the other hand, he is engaging in the conversation, so conversation must be a part of building this new system.

Poverty and inequality are human problems. So it seems only reasonable to concluded that poverty and inequality are caused by human systems. RicHARD believes that such unjust systems are in retreat, not because people are resisting the old systems, but rather because people are creating more humane systems. Here I believe that David and RicH are singing from the same page, and I want to join the chorus. But often what people do in all good intention turns into negative results.

There are systems in which people in which people relate which are not merely human systems. People, what people do, must fit into the environments in which we exist, and these environments are not simply the products of human imagination, even if our understandings of these complex systems are entirely human.

I do not think that we are the system, because we all relate within complicated inter-related systems. I generally have a good opinion of people. I think that if we really knew exactly what to do we'd do it.

Take for example the problems of anthropogenic climate change and dwindling oil supplies. We in the USA know what we're supposed to do: We know that we have to work for a living. Working for a living here in the USA means controlling great amounts of horsepower. Working generally means paying for and feeding an automobile with energy. But just by doing what we're supposed to be doing we fill the air with carbon and other substances which in turns changes the climate system over the entire planet.

What needs to be done? Perhaps RicH knows the answers, knows what bridges are necessary, and knows exactly what to do. I really want to know. I also want to know if what he knows where he lives is also what I need to know where I live.

David wrote:

Yes, but there is only one system in which matter emerges from energetic systems, life emerges from material systems and consciousness emerges from living systems.

Matter and energy have a correspondence E = mc2. So it's very important when David points to the differences between physical and mental systems. However I'm not inclined to think that mental systems are the same as consciousness, nor that they are restricted to human beings.

Something I like very much about David's writing is he addresses very complex ideas in ordinary language. The great challenge for doing this is making sure that meanings are clear and significant, and fundamental patterns are not left out or distorted beyond recognition.

What I find most disconcerting about David's positions is his framing of any criticism of the extraordinarily wealthy and their architectures of control as foolishness based upon an inadequate metaphors of good/evil. Furthermore he introduces biological and evolutionary metaphors without acknowledging the important history of how such metaphors have been applied; for example the odious ideology of racism, precisely by the wealthy whose virtue it seems so important for him to defend--if not their virtue, at least their money.

But, David seems on the right track when he emphasizes the importance of mental processes to the relevant systems people engage. So it seems very significant to understand mental processes.

In this regard I think David would be interested to read Gregory Bateson, at least in thinking about what he's written I was interested in Bateson's six criteria for "mind." I found that a relevant chapter from his book, Angel's Fear: Towards and Epistemology of the Sacred is online. And while searching around I found a very interesting essay by Adam Skibinski METALOGY: A COMMENTARY ON MIND, RECURSION AND TOPOLOGICAL INFERENCE.

The work on biosemiotics tends to quickly reach over my head. Biosemiotics (bios=life & semion=sign) is an interdisciplinary science that studies communication and signification in living systems. But it seems to me that when we're talking about value in the system, as we are here, that the approach of biosemiotics is quite relevant. I was excited to discover the Web page of Jesper Hoffmeyer in today's wanderings.

I'm afraid I'm babbling on, so let me just provide a short quotation from Hoffmeyer's page--being quoted from his book Signs of Meaning in the Universe:

So, in listening to our existential need to belong to both the living and thinking communities of our planet, we instinctively try to empathize with other living, thinking creatures. This we do for the same reason that we are human beings, that we can talk, that we are aware of ourselves. When, for one reason or another, we ignore our need for empathy we end up hurting ourselves. But this is not something we are born knowing, at best we learn it by living our lives. Ideally, ethics give this experience an outlet that saves us from hurting ourselves. But rules and generalizations never quite seem to fit the bill and they are especially given to going rapidly out of date. For this reason normal, healthy individuals tend to have a rather strained attitude towards ethics, which are wont to become a big stick in the hands of the powers that be. The ethical debate is essential, not in order to arrive at a new moral code but in order to keep reviving what, at the end of the day, ethics is all about - our existential need to empathize with other umwelt builders in this weird and wonderful world. And so, as Niklas Luhmann points out, ethics are used to attack morality just as often as they are used in its defense

Oh, you guys write so much, so quickly, and most of it is very dense, heavy stuff. I am having difficulty responding. Almost every sentence makes me want to shout out: Some of your comments bring, "Whoa! Wait a minute!" responses and others bring, "Go! Go!! Go!!!" responses.

I am not in a disagree/agree frame anymore. I believe that the things I read, from well-intentioned people, that make me shout, "Whoa!!" internally, are things that I do not properly understand. My incomplete understanding does not bring up agreement, or disagreement dichotomies anymore.

First, I work hard to put the most generous understanding that I can upon every statement. This results in viewing ALL those with good intentions, as allies, or at least as potential allies. I do not believe that most people want to harm me, or to make me wrong in any manner.

With regard to systems, I feel that the three of US are talking about several different systems. My primary concern, so far as systems go, is something the Mexicans call El Sistema. Americans, particularly those who identify as dissenters, call El Sistema, The System, or The Man. As I think and speak of this System, I mean primarily OUR dominant social, economic, political, psychological, and religious system of human behaviors, but not in a systemic way, such as I feel you are talking about David.

I believe The System that we have was handed down to US from men on horseback with spears. I believe that there has been a constant and ongoing tension between the men with spears, and their allies, who toil in the fields of the lord, and between THOSE of US who toil in the fields of material reality and who maintain the granary and the smithy. This tension still goes on, but the farmers, housewives, and workers who want change, are everywhere in ascension.

A hundred and fifty years ago, slavery was openly endorsed and thought to be godly. The first actual peace movement in the world began in the late fourteenth century. WE are talking about minority rights for the first time without being lynched, or burned at the stake. The fight over gay marriage, contraception, globalization is a sign that those who would keep US separate are forced to openly address issues THEY have marginalized and dominated throughout history.

This does not mean that the men on horseback won't wriggle, twist and squirm to do everything that THEY can to maintain control. It does mean that once control is being talked about those not in control, it is already lost.

I grew up in a union culture. One of the first questions I was ever asked was, Which side are you on, Boy? Which side are you on? I very definitely believe that there are sides. I'm not convinced anymore that one side is better than the other. I think each side has its own faults and strengths.

I believe that David is saying that each side is already functioning in conjunction with the other. I also think that David is saying that when WE focus on the value that already flows from that interaction we have a more successful understanding of the right relation between the sides -- the value-flows.

I personally believe that too much negative value exists in the flows today to ignore ideas like good and evil, right and wrong. Some people are just plain wrong and THEY been wrong for millennia.

John said:

What I find most disconcerting about David's positions is his framing of any criticism of the extraordinarily wealthy and their architectures of control as foolishness based upon an inadequate metaphors of good/evil. Furthermore he introduces biological and evolutionary metaphors without acknowledging the important history of how such metaphors have been applied; for example the odious ideology of racism, precisely by the wealthy whose virtue it seems so important for him to defend--if not their virtue, at least their money.

RicHARD said:

This does not mean that the men on horseback won't wriggle, twist and squirm to do everything that THEY can to maintain control. It does mean that once control is being talked about those not in control, it is already lost.

I agree that we tend to cover too much ground too fast. If I have not been clear, I am saying that everything you know looks different if you focus on the flows instead of the objects. I suggest we take this small part right now:

John believes it is important to me to defend the "wealthy". I suggest that the "wealthy" being responsible for the "oppression of the masses" is an important part of John's world view - and that "men on horseback" roughly corresponds in RicHARD's view. From a value-flows perspective I do not see those divisions in humanity.

Wealth (and power) exist on a continuum. At the top is Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and at the bottom are some 1 billion people "living on less than a dollar a day". Where do we draw the line? Who is our "enemy" because they are wealthy and backed up by men on horseback - could you point them out as we walk down the street?

I do not deny history. There was a time WE engaged in human sacrifice to make it rain. Not too long ago rich and poor believed in the divine right of kings - without a king and his knight we shall be pillaged by the Visigoths. Until 1989 capitalism was locked in a death struggle with communism - one good one bad - depending on which side you were on. Now we have democratic free market theory opposed by . . .

There is in fact only one pattern of value flows comprising one Whole System. There is no one wholly right and no one wholly wrong because we are all ignorant. Every choice either adds value to the System or depletes value from the System. In my analysis, that which would most add value is new forms of organization . . . (and every thing else I am saying).

To the extent that humans create reality it is the cumulative result of all of the choices each of us makes. It may be that there are individuals consciously plotting to keep certain other individuals poor. That would not change my analysis of what WE need to do.

I have NO enemies. I do not make enemies of the people who have extraordinary wealth. I believe that WE have a System that is not working. Wealth is a continuum. The desire not to share is also a continuum. There are many parables about rich and poor giving, contributing and sharing and other parables about NOT sharing, giving, and contributing.

The System that WE have today is unfair in its source. It was created to be unfair and very little value flows from it -- in my opinion. I am neither defending, nor attacking anyone. I do not see any value in power-over systems, which is what the top-down control system that I am describing as men with spears is most usually called. However, I am not attacking those who choose not to share.

Wealth is a continuum, but sharing wealth, or in OUR current culture, NOT sharing wealth, as a socially-approved choice is a rationalization to maintain cultural control by one class. I believe that control is undeserved, unnatural and enforced by thugs owned by the company, the State and the Church. WE ignore that inequality at OUR peril.

Something about the Internet is engaging with really smart people.

Like RicHARD, I think this conversation contains dense and heavy stuff. Like David, I'm not trying to be dense, but it's fair to say I am not very clear, perhaps because I don't clearly understand. I appreciated what RicHARD says about not seeing things through a frame of dichotomies. As it turns out, seeing things through a frame of dichotomies is one of the subjects of this conversation. Somewhere along the line I've learned a particular way of conversation that employs the dichotomies of agreement and disagreement. This way of discussing often leads me to unintentionally offend others. I do not me to offend.

What I hasten to point out is that I see both David and RicHARD as allies and potential allies. My agreement or disagreement has never been with you. Nor is agreement or disagreement fixed, I aim to be convinced; that is I'm not entirely sure of my own ideas. Nevertheless, I would like to try to make my ideas plain.

This particular thread is about the gift of the least among us. It grew out of a discussion of a book by Naomi Klein and other material including a short video. The premise of the book is that fundamental changes to the system, what RicH is referring to as El Sistema are being made in the context of disasters. People when traumatized experience shock, and the changes to the system are being made while people experience shock and before they can regain their footing.

In that discussion David took issue to the frame in which I was viewing Klein's premise. That discussion then turned to meta-theory, or at least a meta discussion about the frames of discussion. David contends that I exemplify a way of thinking that he identifies as faulty. David contends that a more systems thinking approach can avoid the inevitable pitfalls resulting from my perspective which he views as premised on a metaphor of good and evil. He proposes that a metaphor of value-flows supplant the metaphor of good and evil.

This metaphor seems related to a school of business thinking of "value chains," "value migration" and "value flows." But David's use of the construct of "value flows" seem much more expansive than a business context, and he directly relates them to the functioning of ecosystems and broadly to social organizations.

Value is a qualitative construct. In business value is perceived in terms of monetary value; most often relative market value: capitalization divided by annual revenue. David writes about value:

I use value as the generic term for what each of us finds valuable.

In the business use of value flows, there is a quantitative metric which stands in for the qualitative value, but I haven't seen David express a similar metric for his use of the term. So one topic that I've been trying to find some common ground with David is about the nature of value. This is important in the context of his accusation that my values are wrong.

Back to the subject of this thread, "the least among us." I take RicHard's point meaning that ordinary people make the world work. "The salt of the Earth," those most noble among us are the least among us. I believe this is radically true. David responded by thinking from "a systems point of view."

I wanted to present how I viewed RicHard's point as radical; that is, to the root or fundamental to the importance of value. My stories were intended to show the the importance of love; to pose the question: "What's love got to do with it?" What I hoped to demonstrate was that meanings are not things, but meaningfulness is vitally important.

I guess RicHARD went "Whoa! Wait a minute!" and David responded by bringing up the worldview--to which apparently my thinking is emblematic--based on the metaphor of good and evil and presented the view:

I have suggested that a model based on the ecosystem metaphor allows for more accurate predictions – but right now we would have to take into account – in that prediction - that most everyone else is making prediction from the old model.

I averred that we need more than to think in terms of ecological metaphors, that we need to think ecologically. Partly what I mean by this is that it seems to me that David has over-simplified the meaning of ecosystem by premising the whole set of relationships as "based on a rule that each individual of each species will seek the food it needs." Obviously ecosystems are dependent on materials cycling and energy flows, however they cannot be reduced to them. Ecosystems are also dependent on the information.

Certainly when we talk about value, we're not talking about "stuff," if we were then it would be easy to measure. Value is not quantitative, but qualitative. So from a systems point of view it's not enough to view an ecosystem only in terms of materials and energy. Likewise it's not enough in my view to say that the least among us are valuable because there are so many of us.

What I've been trying to get at is the meaning of value among the least among us. Not by resorting to a model based on good and evil, but on a model based on ecology. Clearly I haven't succeeded! But I want to be plain that I see values as inherent in ecosystems, that is communication /information are integral to ecosystems even if those eco-system are largely independent of people.

David wrote:

WE have a dual goal - WE all want both the full expression of biological potential and the full expression of human potential. From the point of view that sees the world as full of competing objects those two goals seem opposed. From a Systems point of view those two goals are potentially complementary.

The Jesper Hoffmeyer quotation was intended in response to this dual goal, which is indeed perhaps the human dilemma or predicament. Consciousness is a peculiar problem, and advantage, perhaps. Meanings are important to ecosystems, but meaningfulness to humans self aware is of another order or logical type. Hoffmeyer's views on how self consciousness came to be in people is relevant to the discussion of "the least among us." There's a short quotation from the same chapter of Signs of Meaning in the Universe that I quoted from before under Bioanthropology. It seems significant that in the same chapter Hoffmeyer examines consciousness and ethics.

My intention in starting the thread on the Shock Doctrine really was political, along the lines of RicHARD's El Sistema, or the Man. But the turn towards a meta-theoretical discussion was not unwelcome, because I very much would like to find some common ground with David. In fact on policy matters, I see broad areas of consensus. However David and I seem to be stuck in an ethical debate.

Perhaps I haven't made clear is that ecosystems are systems which communication and information are integral, in a sense they are systems in which mind plays a part. I'm not operating from a stance of mind/matter dualism. Indeed operating from a stance of the necessary unity of mind and matter in systems such as ecosystems. The problem with getting rid of good and bad, from a systems point of view is in my mind not so elegant a solution as David supposes. And I've tried to say why I think so.

There seems to me some correspondence in my stance with Davids, but so far haven't gotten any indication that he sees any correspondence. This disappoints me. And I'm disappointed that RicHARD doesn't see any connection between what I'm trying to get at with what he's saying. Since nobody else is participating, I fear I'm being a real boor. Yikes! I really don't mean to be argumentative for argument sake. What I most hope for is areas of solid understanding between us.

John, you have not offended me in any way. You neither David. I did not mean that your posts were dense in the sense of thick-witted, or difficult. I meant that your posts were dense in the sense that they were packed full of complex information. Dense is not bad and definitely not offensive.

I am not easily offended. When I am offended, I first figure out MY own role in the offense. Then I work to restate the issue with particular attention to MY part in the situation. Marcus Aurelius said, "It only stings where we have wounds when others through salt." Before throwing salt back, I work to heal MY own wounds.

I work very hard not to personalize, or to take offense with anyone, about anything, at anytime. IF, I may say so myself, I believe that I am doing a very good JOB with the taking-offense-thing overall, especially considering MY personal background. This is not to say that I would not throw over the table, jump up and down and have a splendid and loving argument with either of you fellas, but generally-speaking, I do not easily take offense.

Ya'll have not remotely come near any place that would be touchy to me, or so misinterpreted by ME that I would take offense. My only difficulty with these strings is that the mass of complex information in each post is overwhelming. You Boys is dealing with a near-idiot over here. I ain't the brightest bulb in the string. In fact, I may have burned out ages ago, or maybe I just have an intermittent short that I have to deal with on a daily basis.

I'd like to make a deal. Let's keep this stuff as simple as possible. I know these are complex issues and I am not talking about using sound-bites in lieu of explanation, but I am asking that WE could have one simple statement at a time. WE could discuss that simple statement until the three of US see what the Others are talking about and then WE could move on to another point.

John said . . .

What I hasten to point out is that I see both David and RicHARD as allies and potential allies. My agreement or disagreement has never been with you. Nor is agreement or disagreement fixed, I aim to be convinced; that is I'm not entirely sure of my own ideas. Nevertheless, I would like to try to make my ideas plain.

I agree that WE are allies and I would like for ALL of US to make OUR ideas plain. I need to tell both of YOU that long, complex, meandering explanations are very difficult for ME to read. I do much better listening to long, complex, meandering explanations because then I can stop the speaker and get more information on certain points -- until I understand.

A face to face conversation does make it easier to deal with a step by step explanation - but I couldn't choose one - I have to take these two because I am thinking about them.

RicHARD said:

Wealth is a continuum, but sharing wealth, or in OUR current culture, NOT sharing wealth, as a socially-approved choice is a rationalization to maintain cultural control by one class.

This statement goes to the crux - "sensitivity to the needs of others" is about our obligation to those less fortunate. "Honor the gift of the lease among Us" is about what each of us contributes (or could contribute) to the function of the whole.

The people I know who have become wealthy do not wish anyone to be in poverty - they desire that all people have enough money to buy their goods and services. They are not going to give away what they have worked to acquire - just to maintain someone else in poverty (except that many do and that is the whole philanthropy thing).

I think many more would be willing to "invest" if we could design improvements to the System that allowed every one to contribute.

John said:

Perhaps I haven't made clear is that ecosystems are systems which communication and information are integral, in a sense they are systems in which mind plays a part.

The map of the System I am working on starts with the "big bang" and builds more and more connections until we include all biological systems and all conscious systems. We can describe the System as a group of objects - or we can describe the System as the bridges that allow those objects to exist.

If we think of the System as a group of objects, we tend to divide those objects into objects we like and objects we don't like - and we often do not understand how damage to one object prevents flows from that object through the System - depleting value in the System.

It seems to me that, the common understanding of human conscious systems is that there are good groups and bad groups and that we will always be fighting each other.

Consider that:

• humans form organizations in order to meet one or more of their needs.
• each of us can support (several?) (many?) (three or four?) organizations
• organizations exist by virtue of the participation of their members
• organizations compete in the socio-economic system in a way similar to the way species compete in an ecosystem - except that they do not compete over "nutrients" they compete for the "attention" of people.

To pursue that analogy, We have organizations that We built for when the competition involved men on horseback, guns and bombs, and nuclear missiles. Those organizations had to grow larger and larger to survive. On the economic side, because of economies of scale, businesses have grown larger and larger until they are planetary organizations. Big government and big business are now like dinosaurs in our conscious system.

But WE still have the power to withdraw Our support for those organizations if We had adequate alternatives. New forms of organization that honor the gift of the least among us.

RicHARD wrote:

I'd like to make a deal. Let's keep this stuff as simple as possible. I know these are complex issues and I am not talking about using sound-bites in lieu of explanation, but I am asking that WE could have one simple statement at a time. WE could discuss that simple statement until the three of US see what the Others are talking about and then WE could move on to another point.

I really had a laugh reading RicHARD talk himself in a metaphor a string of lights. First of all I think it's funny because it's clear to me, and in some way clear to RicHARD, that he's a very smart fellow.

I think it's notable that all three of us are approximately the same age, in some sense over the hill. And in a way, David's challenge to not think in old ways or along the lines of an ancient paradigm seems to imply that we should be discussing new-fangled ideas. Really I think our age and experience is an advantage: We know the same songs.

David emphasizes the role of competition in ecosystems. Clearly competition is an important part of the processes of ecosystems, but ecosystem processes also require mutual dependencies. David is of course also trying to draw our attention to this aspect of the process. I'm with him on this, we have to pay attention to both competition and mutual dependencies.

Today I read my local paper, The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. So often the news makes me sad. One of the items was about the murder of a young black participant in Job Corps by some local youths.

A couple of other pieces caught my attention. One was an obituary of a black man named John L. Withers who as a young lieutenant commanding an all-black supply convoy in newly liberated Poland risked his commission by taking in two Jewish boys. He put them in uniform and they did dishes and chores and regained their weight and health. Whenever any white troops were nearby the Jewish boys had to disappear.

The second story was about Bishop Desmond Tutu being in town to receive honorary doctorates from The University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University. There is quite a bit of back story about the Tutu visit which I won't go into.

But reading Hoffmeyer in the context of these threads I was reminded how much his thoughts about bioethics and bioanthropology corresponded to the idea of ubuntu:

Or as the Zulus would say, "Umuntu Ngumuntu Ngabantu", which means that a person is a person through other persons. We affirm our humanity when we acknowledge that of others.

I'm sure that David is onto something important with his concern about the good/evil metaphor. And that concern seem particularly important in re the notion of competition in ecosystems and through analogy social systems. But one of the strengths of talking about "the least among us" is that it helps to draw focus on the importance of mutual dependencies.

I was very saddened by the story of the young man shot and killed. Last week in South Africa the famous singer Lucky Dube was shot and killed. His murder drew more attention on the cascading violence in South Africa. I admire Desmond Tutu very much. His talk was beautiful to me because it was such clever peacemaking. The obituary of John L. Withers too inspired me as containing the deep meaning of ubuntu.

Is ubuntu a simple enough point to discuss relevant to the topic of the "least among us"?

John said:

But one of the strengths of talking about "the least among us" is that it helps to draw focus on the importance of mutual dependencies.

Yes, and I quite agree with the statement from the Ubuntu link:

They know that they are diminished when others are humiliated, diminished when others are oppressed, diminished when others are treated as if they were less than who they are. The quality of Ubuntu gives people resilience, enabling them to survive and emerge still human despite all efforts to dehumanize them."

I have written about that in Conflict, Competition and Symbiosis/Synergy:

Each individual seeks to participate in organizations that will provide for their basic needs. Each organization seeks to compete successfully with similar organizations and find a fit in the complexity spiral. From a System point of view, different forms of organization find a fit where there is Symbiosis/Synergy. That is, where the interaction of both forms produces more [value] flow than the sum of the [value] that each would produce without the interaction.

To require a person to be "marketable" as a standard of worth, does not take into account the value that person could have contributed if the System had a "place" for that person to "fit".

To require a person to be "marketable" as a standard of worth, does not take into account the value that person could have contributed if the System had a "place" for that person to "fit".

This is such a good point because it gets to the process of inventing some good ways of creating value.

Clearly I'm a bleeding heart. As such it's a good thing to know about the blind spots being so creates. Over my life time there have always seemed to be plenty of people ready to point them out.

I rather rushed my last post as I had an appointment to keep. I felt a bit guilty all evening for not saying the name of the "young black participant in Job Corps" who was murdered. He was Christopher Evans. His murder made me sad for so many reasons.

I live sort of out in the country, a northern suburban area of Pittsburgh, just over the county line. But the city is still my main focus, I mean I think of myself as a Pittsburgher. This city, and metropolitan region is unusual in having so many municipalities. The Steel barons encouraged the patchwork of government authorities, but it has many cultural aspects too. Many neighborhoods are ethic conclaves.

Where Christopher Evans was killed is a black neighborhood, and the plight of the neighborhood, Homewood, is one many here grieve about. More than that, it's a neighborhood some people try hard to improve.

Job Corps has been around since The Great Society programs of the Johnson era. In Pittsburgh about 350 participants are housed in dormitories in Homewood.

People my age--fifty-something--like people of a certain age years past--despair about "young people today." I like young people. Maybe some of my positive impression comes from the set of young people I know, my family and friends. But in Christopher Evans I saw so much positive. He was from Texas, studying hard, a good student. He was living example for a troubled neighborhood of what is possible. And I think that Christopher understood this part.

Locals wondered whether he knew how dangerous the neighborhood was. His dad is a probation officer. I believe he did know. Christopher wanted to go into mapping, and had a keen interest in maps. He knew how to get around a geographically complex city because he was adept at maps.

Three 15 year-olds and a 16 year old have been arrested in connection to Christopher's death. My brother David was murdered, and three 15 year olds and a 16 year old were arrested and convicted in his murder. I can look at my young life now and think what a fool I've been, but I don't ridicule my idealism. When I was Christopher's age, I also tried to do something good for a troubled neighborhood. The results weren't pretty, but I survived unscathed.

This business of creating places for those with no place isn't easy and can be dangerous indeed. It does seem relevant to point out that Christopher Evans was a young black guy. But the color of his skin really has little to do with the sadness his death brings. The promise that his life embodied is something that David, RicHARD and I are all very concerned to do something about. We all want to create value where others see little.

I'm not religious. But I do admire Bishop Tutu. Something that I value very much about him is knowing how must sadness he's endured and witnessed and yet the joy he takes in living.

My good/evil worldview is a thread through these threads. I mentioned Lucky Dube's murder because I had introduced ubuntu. The violence of South Africa today might be presented as evidence against the value in the proposition, which I think quite fundamental, likewise Christopher Evan's murder. Evans and Dube saw value where others saw little. I like to think I do too. It's so easy to get discouraged. Among people my age we might remember greeting others with "Keep the faith" maybe we're older and wiser now. I don't remember the last time I said that. Last night I was with some very good and liberal friends. I think they'd think me foolish--of course they're friends and already know I'm foolish--if I were to say to them "Keep the faith baby."

But I need to be told often because I do get discouraged. Creating value where others see none is essential. Not just you, David and RicH, but especially you, are important to me precisely because you both engage in creating value. And the two of you are ones who with a straight face I'll say: Keep the faith.

I have had many discussions on value in the last month and I would like to share a little.

The community I have been living in is an intentional community. It is people from many walks of life who have come together primarily to study being better Buddhists. Some came from what capitalist/consumerists would refer to as poor backgrounds and other came from rich families and lives. All gave up possessions and have focused on simple lives not dependent on money and possessions. Over the years they developed a slogan "We dare to be poor." I heard this slogan one too many times when I was in the community.

These people are not poor. They are the wealthiest people I have met in my life as a group. They have clothes to wear and more than enough food to eat. They have educations and medical care. They have community to support them when they are sick or aging. They have time to work on their spiritual development. They work to contribute to the well-being of the society as a whole. They do not have large beautiful houses filled with lots of stuff.

I tried to explain to one of my friends there that they have fallen into the trap of using a language that has been distorted through the ages.

c.1250, "happiness," also "prosperity in abundance of possessions or riches," from M.E. wele "well-being" (see weal (1): "well-being," O.E. wela "wealth," in late O.E. also "welfare, well-being," from W.Gmc. * welon, from PIE base * wel- "to wish, will" (see will (v.)). Related to well (adv.).) on analogy of health. Wealthy as a synonym for "rich" is recorded from c.1430.

By calling themselves poor they buy into and give credence and power to the definition of wealth as measured by money and possessions or consumption rather than happiness. Using the term happiness doesn't please me very much either as it is a fluffy term and can be dependent on flighty things rather than substantive things. The fact of the matter is "Money can't buy me (or you) love." (Which song did you think of since we are all about the same age?)

(I have been watching and considering all you have been sharing, I just haven't had the time or opportunity to respond. I hope you guys don't mind my female intrusion!)

Linda said:

I hope you guys don't mind my female intrusion!

Of course not - welcome. I think your intentional community is a good model for a "set of bridges" that produces abundance. Can we implement that in a way that it is open to all those in need - whether a little or a lot - without requiring the desire for spiritual growth or the rejection of material possessions?

This is related to the problem Christina is facing in Ned Uganda as a coop.

• If the materially poor had the knowledge and skills to implement what we are talking about they would already be engaged in the market.
• The market cannot produce abundance because that drives the "market price" below the cost of production.
• To succeed in the market, one must specialize and find economies of scale (through mechanization and automation to reduce the "cost of labor").
• The resource we are seeking to utilize is labor that is "excess" to the market.

The idea of the Self-help Corporation/ Community Investment Enterprise is to create a situation for anyone who does not currently "fit" in the market to participate in creating what Linda describes as:

They have clothes to wear and more than enough food to eat. They have educations and medical care. They have community to support them when they are sick or aging.

Whis is poor? From the poverty page on Wikipedia...

The World Bank's "Voices of the Poor," based on research with over 20,000 poor people in 23 countries, identifies a range of factors which poor people identify as part of poverty. These include

• precarious livelihoods
• excluded locations
• physical limitations
• gender relationships
• problems in social relationships
• lack of security
• abuse by those in power
• disempowering institutions
• limited capabilities, and
• weak community organizations