You are welcome to use any of the formulation I am working on . . .

In every community there is unused human and biological potential. We call them poverty and environmental degradation and treat them as a problem instead of a resource . . . How Humans Came to Live in Peace and Plenty

Realizing this unused potential requires extending a hand (bridge) to help others contribute to our community and thereby become a part of it . . . Organizing to Heal Nature and Produce Abundance

Not only are we responsible for the wellbeing of one another, we all benefit when others can contribute to our community and we all suffer the lose of that contribution when "economics" prevent that contribution . . . Three Dimensional Networking

Hey Linda - it's a great start and sounds interesting. I think it would be wise in the "how does your program relate to the theme" part to zero in on economics a bit more (or at least mention it). Something about economics being one of the most tangible ways in which we are all connected in today's world, perhaps?

It is a pity that Daisaku Ikeda is not among the major speakers...would not attend if were within my wee means!

:)

Sounds great so far, well done. As economics is tied to people it might be interesting to somehow tie in "social media" which also ties into Christina's "we are all connected in today's world" thought.

How the web, text messaging, online networks, flickr, facebook, youtube, twitter and all these things fit in...

Linda, I like the way this is taking shape. I see particularly the relevance of your answer to the "How does yor program relate.." question. The final sentence, though, seems a bit detached:

Only through personal transformation will people gain the power to make the huge changes required for insuring our future.

The missing link for me is some explanation of what faith-based economics has to do with (a) spirituality and (b) personal transformation.

And when you say "insuring our future", do you mean ensuring that we have a future (i.e. addressing the risk we may not have a future: of any kind) rather than making payment (in some form or another) to guarantee a future of a particular quality or standard?

And, with reference to the "primary audience" question, while I see the relevance of an answer that basically says that faith-based economics is of direct relevance to everyone (even, presumably, to those who profess no faith), the inclusion of the word "primary" invites you perhaps to identify categories of people who might best be able to bring about the wider implementation of the precepts of faith-based economic systems.

I assume you'll get the student rates! This looks great. David makes some really good points to the point. Seeing as how I always just go off-topic I'll put some rumblings on my profile page.

Glad Johnny Bravo Bravo [(u r my pal boy!:)] has enjoined this!

Great thoughts peeople!

[Edited by group owner: Linda Nowakowski on 24 Feb 2009 05:27 PST: I really never thought I would edit someone else's post, but this is my personal news and it is fed out other places and I have edited out language that (because of my heritage) I find particularly offensive. I do hope you all understand.]

These are all great ideas and I will work with them in the morning. This came up so quickly and requires such speedy action....

Any other ideas?

This is a copy of a communication I just sent to a program associate in the Office of the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago:

Dear Precious,

Thank you very much. Indeed I had just gotten an email from Mr Petr Svoboda from the Melbourne office directing me to the online submission form. He was kind enough to point out that we had met at the Gross National Happiness Conference in Bangkok a bit over a year ago. It is such a small world!

I will be submitting a proposal, most likely online, before Friday. I unfortunately just heard about this conference. I am not even sure how I was mailed the announcement on the week-end. It would seem to be the perfect venue to focus attention and action on a topic that I feel is so critical that I have changed my PhD research to deal with it. That would be the idea that, in light of the current world environmental crisis that is caused by the same forces that have caused the current international economic crisis, it is time to bring values and community back into economics. It is my opinion that this will only happen with the personal involvement of millions of spiritually aware individuals. This conference could provide the starting point for taking economics away from the economic social scientists and giving it back to the societies and communities of the world. It could start drawing attention to the fact that people enable economics not vice versa and it is our social values supported by our spirituality and sense of justice that drive our social structures and should be allowed to once again drive our economics.

Thank you again for sending me the file.

Most sincerely,

Linda

...there is a whole world of ideas out here, beibie! :)

Thats y i love Linda, n thats y i have not yet said what she taught me!

Brilliant :)

I believe I have addressed the incredibly good points brought to the table by Christina and David.

I do want to address the points Mark made. Mark, you are absolutely right in the role of social media here. And it is a recipient as well as a participant in the process. The personal transformation required includes a recognition of the importance and value of right action - including right speech - which positively impacts the realm of social media. And with increased trust in the social media, it has increased power to assist in the communication needs of the work that has to be done.

Now, why didn't I include it? The main thing here is getting the transformation started that has people changing their mind-sets. Economics is driven by people not by economists. People need to see that it is their values and actions in the marketplace that choose between sustainable or unsustainable futures. They, as individual actors in the marketplace, determine the trends of corporate responsibility. They as communities establish the laws that establish and regulate acceptable behavior in our communities.

I think at this point it is more important to focus on the conversation than on what kind of communication device is being used.

Does that make sense? Please, feel feel to correct me if you think I am wrong or missing a point.

I don't think you're wrong, and I'm not certain if it fits in (for sure). Though I do find myself thinking about Cluetrain: http://www.cluetrain.com/

1. Markets are conversations.
2. Markets consist of human beings, not demographic sectors.
3. Conversations among human beings sound human. They are conducted in a human voice.
4. Whether delivering information, opinions, perspectives, dissenting arguments or humorous asides, the human voice is typically open, natural, uncontrived.
5. People recognize each other as such from the sound of this voice.

And see where so many of these things tie together. And I agree, it's all about the conversation and not at all about the device...be it FTF, mobile, txt, online, IM, email, phone, etc.

...all are great ideas! Everyone has them...!

Cheers! :)

John Nirenberg (a member of my research committee) has suggested the following wording:

How does your program relate to the 2009 Parliament theme: Make a World of Difference: Hearing each other, Healing the earth?

We are all connected through economics. In order to heal our troubled economies, and each other, we need to understand right behavior. Right behavior is consistency with the values we hold based upon our faith. It is a crucial time to talk about how our values and our economics fit together and may provide insight for a new economy.

How does your program relate to the following goals of the Parliament:

• In seeking justice and sustainable living, we actively express our commitment to a better world.
• In recognizing the humanity of the other, we create the conditions for community.
• In deepening our spirituality, we experience personal transformation.

The planet is imperiled by an economic system fueled by greed. Through our respective faiths we attempt to achieve an understanding of how we can express our humanity in community with others. Personal transformation is the result of following a path of seeking understanding and to find a place in harmony with nature and connected to others in the human family. Along that path we must establish justice and learn sustainable living, invent social and economic mechanisms for meaningful community and rediscover our shared values that will enable us to achieve all of these things.

Our “economics of self-interest” has, ironically, destroyed the quality of life we thought it would create. This panel discussion will attempt to imagine a new economics based on our shared human values of compassion, moderation, service, and spiritual growth.

How do the content, format and design of your program help to achieve these goals?

The participants of this assembly, coming from a wide diversity of faith backgrounds could, provide insights for us to understand what a new economics would look like and, through sharing their experiences help us create a shared sense of purpose while building community among us. Ultimately, the revelations of this panel will stimulate further efforts to create new assumptions, systems and processes that underlie an economics of justice, sufficiency, and faith.

Who do you predict your primary audience will be? Why?

I believe that this discussion has the potential of being of immediate interest to all participants interested in bringing their faith into all aspects of their lives including their economic lives and their workplaces. The economy affects each of us every day and determines the stability of our livelihoods. This panel will be of interest to anyone who is actively seeking new ideas to integrate their faith with their social and environmental realities and who wishes to pursue interpersonal and societal trust, justice, sustainability, and compassion not as a part of their lives but as the whole of their lives.

This panel will speak to the socially engaged believer who wants practical ideas to create a harmonious interfaith community of men and women living their values.

Comments?

Linda, when talking about "community" i guess we may'd like to look at David Braden's thread about it, and try to figure out the "parameters of inclusion".

When talking about "humanity" we might like to re-look at "humanity before politics" 's thread by P.O.!

Peas!

:)

Linda, I prefer your version as it now stands (after Christina and David's suggestions) to John Nirenberg's. That's from my perspective as a person of 'no professed faith', your version engages me more than the other. But could be that your intended audience might prefer the second ?

(Swap to Editor's hat;))Although I wouldn't touch your version contents-wise, it would read better if some of those longer sentences became two! Have to say, that last sentence in particular is bugging me so much that I have to offer you this now! :

Primarily, I would hope this panel would speak to those who have the power to initiate the viral growth in personal spiritual transformation, creating a new thread of personal strength and responsibility in the overall fabric of right action and right thought. This can lead to community revitalization, justice, sustainable practices, and the development of revitalized and more realistic economies, resulting in the reduction or elimination of poverty.

The very best of luck, which ever version you go with :)

This is what I have just submitted:

Description:

A panel discussion between experts from varied religious traditions to start the search for common values we all bring to our social interactions and in particular to our interactions in the marketplace with a goal of re-framing economics as a SOCIAL science looking at human, humane, values driven actions rather than a SCIENCE that encourages "self interest" and greed in an unsustainable, unbalanced model of economic activity.

Format: Panel Discussion

How Your Program Relates to the 2009 Parliament Theme:

In today's broken world, economics is one of the most tangible ways in which we are all connected. In order to heal our economies, our environment and each other, we need to see more right behavior. Right behavior is driven by the values that we hold and these values that we hold are birthed by the faith communities we participate in. It is a crucial time to talk about how all of these things fit together in a seamless whole.

How Your Program Relates to the Goals of the Parliament:

Personal transformation is at the center of all of these points. A reawakening of our spirituality and the understanding of the human condition of inter-relatedness to one another and to the nature around us is perhaps the key piece required in establishing justice and sustainable living, recreating meaningful community and rediscovering the values required for all of them. All spiritual traditions I have looked at recognize the complex relationship between spirituality, individual, community and nature. All of our problems seem to arise as a decrease in personal spirituality upsets that balance and results in allowing the rise of the individual as separate from the whole and no longer responsible for personal action, community or the stewardship of nature. This imbalance results in the breakdown of community, the unsustainable lifestyles and economic practices, and the destruction of people, relationships and the environment in order to satisfy the new goal of "self-interest". Our “economics of self-interest” has, ironically, destroyed the quality of life we thought it would create. This panel discussion will attempt to imagine a new economics based on our shared human values of compassion, moderation, service, and spiritual growth.

How Your Program Helps to Achieve The Goals:

The participants of this assembly, coming from a wide diversity of faith backgrounds could, by speaking with one voice, provide the impetus to encourage communities of faith to urgently and diligently discuss and find the commonalities of values and community that need to be brought to the table in addressing economic issues.

Your Predicted Audience:

I believe that this discussion has the potential of being of immediate interest to all participants. The economy affects each of us every day of our lives in some way or another, whether it is in the value of our currency in the marketplace, the stability of our livelihoods, or even just the secondary impact of the failing economy and the affect it has on our taxes and hence our income and ability to survive. Likewise, the solution to the problem is not and can not be left to the economists. Each of us are needed, through the values we bring into community and the marketplace, to return an ailing system that is destroying individuals, communities, livelihoods and the environment back to health. The primacy of our values to the proper functioning of the institutions of trust, justice, sustainability, and compassion (to name only a few) must be re-discovered.

Primarily, I would hope this panel would speak to those who have the power to initiate the viral growth in personal spiritual transformation creating a new thread of personal strength and responsibility in the overall fabric of right action and right thought which can lead to community revitalization, justice, sustainable practices, and the development of revitalized and more realistic economies resulting in the reduction or elimination of poverty.

--------------- Panel Moderator ----------------

Name: Linda Nowakowski

Religious Tradition: Christian

Religious Subtradition: Protestant

Availability:

Biographical Statement:

Linda Nowakowski, the panel moderator, is a faculty member at Ubon Rajathanee University, Ubon Ratchathani, Thailand teaching heterodox and Buddhist Economics. She is also a graduate student doing PhD thesis work on values/faith based economic systems.

I have contacted a Buddhist Economist in Thailand, a Christian Economist in the UK, an Islamic Economist in the US (I have an alternate for this in Australia), and have been trying to contact a Jewish Economist in Israel and a Sikh Economist in Canada. This covers 5 of the top 12 faith traditions in the world and all of the traditions with some established economic tradition. It also represents some 4 billion people of the 6.7 billion on the planet. The gaping hole is 1.1 billion Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist persons.

Thanks for all of your help! I will keep you posted on what happens!

That reads fantastic, needless to say but will say anyway...fingers and toes are crossed.

Linda, Not connected to the above but further to my note in early January I advise I arrive back in Ubon on 11th March 2009 and will be out to the Uni soon after that to see what vegetables I may be able to have a go at growing. Cheers Phil Rose

Firstly, my apologies for not coming back to you in time. I hope the application is successful and it is an event that I would be interested in attending in Melbourne, if I am around in Oz this Christmastime.

I would like to add a few comments:

Our “economics of self-interest” has, ironically, destroyed the quality of life we thought it would create.

This seems a difficult statement. I think what most people now believe is that "unregulated" self-interest is risky. Few seem ready to even consider that self-interest should no longer be promoted as the primary means of doing business. Even on this forum, people would stand behind this.

I would like to see a tempering "triple bottom line" approach in business, where businesses can use their inherent self interest (which will not dissolve in a hundred years) to change their strategies through very carefully-considered tax incentives to become more socially aware. Essentially make it uneconomic to trade selfishly. Let inherent selfishness tackle social issues.

The other issue, which I felt was not included is the ideological "Star Trek" or "Utopian" "cashless" scenario. We have so many cashless things happening in our society, that perhaps it is time to evaluate and proactively develop them, not merely use the market to "encourage" them. For instance, why not pay volunteers in the UK in "Help Africa" vouchers?

Another example, why not make staple food free in Africa, ending hunger. These are not "economic" principles - and some would say foolhardy - but they do relate to money and how it is spent.

The exclusion of money from a situation can have many benefits and I would like to see these explored. Always worth remembering that money brings greed and selfishness with it, so perhaps we should be look more at ways it should be removed, where possible to do so.