|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/15/2009 5:23:24 AM |
Nakedness is not a sin...
In your case, it is the greatest of virtues!...Wanna go camping?...Oh RATS, I forgot!...Ya got a man already...(Need a rubber Dukky for your tub?...Failing that, how about one for the liquor cabinet?) 
Actually, in the egalitarian, communal au natural law society I envision, EVERY beautiful woman and every well stocked BAR would have a rubber Dukky. In fact, as part of my commitment to a Utopian world, I'm renting them out at reasonable rates. (sorry...it's the detestable capitalist in me; I thought I was rid of him after I saw the light and was "hatched again." I hope I haven't totally blown my "self-actualized" role. Oh, well, back to the Mother Theresa School of Self-Actualization; that woman could really "rock" when she was off duty.)
Diva...Now look what you've done to me ...I'm wrecking my own thread and it's all your fault!! I'll get you for this!...This means war!
Oh geeze...You've got me so flustered I can't even think of a way to get back on topic. what were we talking about anyway?  | |
|
| |
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/15/2009 9:14:06 PM | | Oh yes...and you mentioned that there already exist models of what I'm talking about. Well, not quite, those models won't be truly accurate until we have them under the rule of unwritten natural law along with perhaps a few contractual agreements like agreement to the terms of the communal concept of fair use of resources and a democratic process for taking care of administration (which will of course have nothing to do with rights or obligations, simply for contracted work for things like an infrastructure, or inter-community relations, etc.) | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/16/2009 5:33:34 PM | You had an excellent point with this:
Why not have (for instance) a world of communities; or if it's a matter of scale, why not have breakdowns such as we have now, with the globe (a level 4 community) countries (level 3 communities), cities (level 2), communes (level 1). The only real reason for the divisions might be for such things as might require economy of scale (moon landings, accelerators, etc), scaled down as needed (city roads & infrastructure) to the level of say communal farms. All these "entities" could be united under the rule of unwritten (and therefore incorruptable) Natural Law, with a judicial system not unlike the one we have now, minus the statutes & precedents & feudalistic (or neo-feudalistic) holdovers like capitalism (too self-serving and allowing the corrupt too much power through economic manipulation).
I think this model is very applicable, and can be done on a grander scale. We used this model back when I was doing direct action, (after the whole Seattle fiasco a few years ago, we had to find some way for the varying groups to work together).
But...I have to find some way to disagree with you...since we are at war...and I will be butt-naked while I do it.  | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/16/2009 5:44:21 PM |
But...I have to find some way to disagree with you...since we are at war...and I will be butt-naked while I do it.
we had to find some way for the varying groups to work together).
That's the problem I'm having with the whole idea. My best hunch right now is to unify the group under a unifying ideology based on the natural laws.
So each group would never act out of the interest of the other group. If one commune had surplus resources, then the resources would be distributed such that the communes in need of such resources could receive it. But that sounds like communism and I don't know if it would be a good Idea. | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/16/2009 5:58:57 PM | Second post said it right. We're too mean selfish creatures to even go to such a place the third wasn't bad about being bored. I think it would all crumble when Budhdda, Jesus, and Gandhi get into a fist fight over the concept of the "right" way of doing things. Remember that Jesus fellow had some violent out bursts. I think about whiping people in the temple.
I have to agree about the Social Stratifcation agrument. It is the enemy form without that binds us within. I would hate to live in such a place until I'm dead and I can handle such a state. | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/16/2009 6:33:17 PM | That's the problem I'm having with the whole idea. My best hunch right now is to unify the group under a unifying ideology based on the natural laws.
And that is often the first place where people jump to. But who is to decide the unifying ideology? I was raised in existential transcendentalism. What you stated is what I was taught.
When we had to work with different groups, we discovered how very different our ideolgies were. We had the anarchist group, the earth-based spirituality group, the we-are-here-for-our-community-group, a church group, and several other factions that on the outside, all look incongruous, and as if we couldn't possibly get along.
What we found in common, was a a value system, that was based on inherent value (sorry for being redundant, can't think of another word), and once we found and connected with this, we were able to establish a foundation based on clear communication. It can sometimes take a long time to establish this. The larger the group, the more varying ideologies, the longer it may take. It takes a commitment to the process...
The common ground we established, was a commitment to social justice. That was a reflection of what we valued. The ideology behind this varied, and for the sake of actually getting something DONE, diversity was not only tolerated, but supported, as we found the things that each group was naturally good at, and how best we we could work together. (natural order and homeostasis as applied to group dynamics)
This sounds like a pretty picture doesn't it? But sometimes the process can look/feel very messy, and just when you are about to give up, something happens...
It doesn't always work. However it is more likely to work, if agreements about how such meetings should operate are made ahead of time, based upon that common value system. It can take a lot of work...
 indirectly at Dukky
I suspect the OP is manipulating all of us, to even having this dialogue. I suspect he is quacking in delight... | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/16/2009 6:43:31 PM | | I have one problem with this someone needs to lead or there will be chaos. What would this perfect society do? We have to think about the practical things in life, like IDK eating. We need to raise our food be it growing and perserving crops. Or raising and slaughtering livestock for food. Then their is power generation, and the labor which goes it that, be it running the plant or mining the materials. Who's social justice are we going to apply? What you may consider just may not be the same value I hold. Trust me, politics is a tricky thing. How would disagreements be handled. Remember that mean selfish thing. Our human urgues don't change but are controled. There must be a way of dealing with an impass at disagreement. What is the thing that we're trying to get DONE? I'd like to see the practical operation of this dream world. What about care for the sick, disabed...etc or are we going to apply social dynamics to them i.e. euthinasia? | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/16/2009 7:32:41 PM | Yaye! I get to get into a good scrap. You have made my day. 
I have one problem with this someone needs to lead or there will be chaos.
I will respond to you with a post I made earlier, taken from the mission statement of an intentional community that I stayed with:
We do not have a central leader; we govern ourselves by a form of democracy with responsibility shared among various managers, planners, and committees.
Why is it that a lack of a central leader is so scary? In the group dynamics I was talking about there is an impartial facilitator. They are not allowed to vote, and their only function is to maintain that the agreement rules, negotiated ahead of time, are observed. In a Utopian self-actualized society, there might possibly exist the idea that we are our own authority, as individuals and as a whole, and are based upon a common value system: inherent human value.
What would this perfect society do? We have to think about the practical things in life, like IDK eating. We need to raise our food be it growing and perserving crops. Or raising and slaughtering livestock for food. Then their is power generation, and the labor which goes it that, be it running the plant or mining the materials.
This has been done, in small communities...the question I have always had was who was going to take care of the ROADS and the stoplights that are in between the different communities...yeah, I tend to think along the practical too.
Who's social justice are we going to apply?
The capitalists? The communists? The socialists? Who? Who? Who? The answer is the owls...
No seriously. You have a really good point. I have always maintained there are three types of power: power over, power with, and power within. Self-actualization is a process of developing power within. If everyone had power within, would they need to have that sense of power over others? Or would they not feel more empowered to have a dynamic of power with (their fellow human beings, and thus easier, to establish a foundation based upon shared communication, negotiation, and a common value system (power with)?
Trust me, politics is a tricky thing.
You are dead on here. Transparent processing is no easy thing to learn...a lot of mistakes are made...but can we entertain the idea, that once the value of it has been learned and the benefit is made clear, might not it become easier over time?
How would disagreements be handled.
Through conflict resolution, and group mediation, facilitated by an impartial individual. This person does not have power over the group, but is a servant of the group's best interest.
[quote Remember that mean selfish thing.
It has been my experience, that people act the most selfish when they feel a lack of power, and they feel that their voices go unheard.
There must be a way of dealing with an impass at disagreement.
There is. Compromise. That dirty little word, where each person, or group, sometimes walks away feeling dissatisfied. This a really good point. Let's leave this one open for discussion... | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/16/2009 8:17:09 PM |
We do not have a central leader; we govern ourselves by a form of democracy with responsibility shared among various managers, planners, and committees.
Why is it that a lack of a central leader is so scary? In the group dynamics I was talking about there is an impartial facilitator. They are not allowed to vote, and their only function is to maintain that the agreement rules, negotiated ahead of time, are observed. In a Utopian self-actualized society, there might possibly exist the idea that we are our own authority, as individuals and as a whole, and are based upon a common value system: inherent human value.
Pure Democracy is more dangerous than Anarchy for it give the mob cover for illwill. It is explained this way there are 3 men and 2 women the men want to rape the women, so they put it to a vote the men all vote to rape the women vote against it the men win.
I've dealt with real planners, managers, and committees and they need a leader to give direction and focus, or it desolves into partisain pettiness. Or worse quixotic episodes. So it is a non starter.
How would disagreements be handled.
Through conflict resolution, and group mediation, facilitated by an impartial individual. This person does not have power over the group, but is a servant of the group's best interest. It has been my experience, that people act the most selfish when they feel a lack of power, and they feel that their voices go unheard.
Courts are there when no mediation and compromise can be met? What is the party after being judged is still wronged will they have a system of appeal? | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/16/2009 8:20:29 PM |
I have one problem with this someone needs to lead or there will be chaos
The society, in order to avoid and prevent tyranny from rearing its ungly head must of necessity be leaderless in the sense that you might normally think of it. In fact the people (the entire collective community of communities) would be "the leader". The Rule of law would be unwritten and carved in stone as it were and all members of all communes would find that the principle that binds. What remains to establish is a workable structure that preserves the "small community" feel while scaling up to global proportions.
I envision a sort of "genealogical molecule" model, with communities of perhaps 100 to about 1000 appointing say 10 or 20 "reps" to meetings of about 100 other communities, from which about 10 or 20 delegates would be selected to go to "level 3" meetings, etc. right up to the global level. Administrative bodies not unlike current parliaments could be made up of hired civil servants (without the ability to make "laws") at every level to administer the mundane business of running the various communities at the various levels.
I also see something like a social credit monetary system. It is a theoretically superior system to the one using private banks and of course the technology has existed for quite some time to handle the accounts. You guys might want to acquaint yourselves with it so I can get your opinions on it. | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/16/2009 8:28:26 PM | Pure Democracy is more dangerous than Anarchy for it give the mob cover for illwill
I don't mean to be unkind Gadget, but get with the program. Rights and obligations are preset. They are NOT on the table for discussion. EVERYone's rights remain intact and CANNOT by the very nature of the system be taken away by any "tyranny of the majority."
The only things to be democratically voted on are things like allocation of resources, for things like infrastructure. Things like abortion rights etc. would be decided by the courts on a case by case basis. Complete transparency of government and its administration is a MUST, so even the judges would be monitored by citizens who could themselves overule the judge if they believed the ruling to be unfair. I've already gone over this in the posts here and don't feel I should have to explain the entire plan to date to everyone that wants to join the discussion. I urge you (and anyone else who wants to contribute) to read all the postings on this thread before ventiring an informed opinion. Failure to do so, only results in redundancies. | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/16/2009 8:29:48 PM | Duky this will be my last post for the evening. I would say your numbers are too small currently to govern the Continental US requires 584 Reps, 100 Senators, 9 Justices, 1 Executive, this is not to even talk about local governments. The various "smaller" courts. So to Govern effectively on a Global level You would need at least 10,000 people to govern the 6 populated continents. Can you imagine trying to motovate them to agree on how to govern and meet the needs of the Represented?
I am pointing out the difference between pure Democracy vs. a Representive Republic. We must take into account human nature (Hobbsian in my view) if we want an honest discussion on how things would work. No matter how civil the society crime and greed will presit because this is part of the human condition. | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/16/2009 8:44:45 PM | Can you imagine trying to motovate them to agree on how to govern and meet the needs of the Represented?
Well, we may have to break it down to more levels. In an efffort to maintain the "small" community feel, even the global meetings should probably not consist of more than maybe a hundred reps (who will be well lubricated with booze from a pre-meeting coçtail party to boost the feelings of friendship & camaraderie) at the "policy meetings" and civil servant audits (to insure their honesty & integrity)
It should be noted that no individual should attend any consecutive meetings at any particular level. This should lessen the likelihood of stuff like cronyism, bribery & extortion as political levers, and of course the judiciary (along with the "overseer citzens" watching the adjudicators) would be present at the very public and open policy meetings to assure there is no "hanky-panky"
How are we doin' so far? comments? Suggestions? | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/16/2009 8:48:35 PM |
Pure Democracy is more dangerous than Anarchy for it give the mob cover for illwill. It is explained this way there are 3 men and 2 women the men want to rape the women, so they put it to a vote the men all vote to rape the women vote against it the men win.
Correction. She did not imply pure democracy:
by a form of democracy with responsibility shared among various managers, planners, and committees.
She said "a form of democracy". It is implied that the pure democracy you mentioned has no boundaries. This is not in line with "a form of democracy with responsibility shared among various managers, planners, and committees".
responsibility: having a capacity for moral decisions and therefore accountable; capable of rational thought or action: The defendant is not responsible for his actions.
moral: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
Therefore, "various managers, planners, and committees" could not condone any decisions that are detrimental to the group.
"3 men and 2 women the men want to rape the women, so they put it to a vote the men all vote to rape the women vote against it the men win."
They could not allow this since its against their responsibility. | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/16/2009 8:57:28 PM |
Pure Democracy is more dangerous than Anarchy for it give the mob cover for ill will.
I completely disagree with that. Pure Democracy... what is it? It would basically mean everyone votes on every issue.
BTW: Switzerland does this a good part of the time... for many but not all issues.
Pure democracy wouldn't be dangerous... it would merely be expensive since it costs money to run the system of counting and taking ballots.
Anarchy on the other hand means there isn't any central government. In practice what would happen is that it would be survival of the fittest. A good example of Anarchy is Somalia... no functioning central government there. So what do we get when that happens? Militant gangs taking over.
With pure democracy, you end up with something that resembles Switzerland somewhat.
With pure Anarchy, you end up with something that resembles Somalia.
You still think Democracy is more dangerous than Anarchy?
It is explained this way there are 3 men and 2 women the men want to rape the women, so they put it to a vote the men all vote to rape the women vote against it the men win.
FALSE LOGIC. What are you, a misandrist? You're assuming that men will have a moral compass exactly Zero Percent of the time. I FUNDAMENTALLY DISAGREE WITH THAT. Remember one thing... one of the reasons why Feminist movement was successful in North America is because many MEN out there agreed with the principles of equality. After all, how many women were there in parliament when women gained the right to vote (as one example)?
The other flaw in that line of reasoning is that there are typically about the same number of women in a given society as men. So the chances are you'll actually have something like 3 men and 3 women voting. And factoring in that at least SOME men will be opposed to the idea of rape (personally I believe most would be), how do you think that vote will go in reality?
Now as a general comment... Utopia will never be achieved until everyone in society becomes perfect.
You can have the perfect system, but if you have imperfect people in it, it's not gonna work... and hence, no Utopia. And just because someone is "self actualized" (and I'm going by what Maslow said about what "self actualized" means), does NOT mean they've achieved perfection.
Aaaaand... that means that even if every person in the world became self-actualized tomorrow it wouldn't mean squat in terms of achieving Utopia. | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/16/2009 9:04:44 PM | Now as a general comment... Utopia will never be achieved until everyone in society becomes perfect.
That depends on your definition of utopia.
if you have imperfect people in it, it's not gonna work
In case you haven't noticed, the primary assumption is that people are imperfect and the system must be designed to prevent a takeover by the same kind of powermad monsters that we currently have in governments today. I really wish you guys would read the earlier posts; I am getting tired of repeating myself. | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/16/2009 9:12:31 PM |
Pure Democracy is more dangerous than Anarchy for it give the mob cover for illwill. It is explained this way there are 3 men and 2 women the men want to rape the women, so they put it to a vote the men all vote to rape the women vote against it the men win.
You (and I know I am addressing you personally, if I over step my boundaries, please tell me. You don't even have to be nice about it.) are coming at this from a place of fear. And fear is a healthy thing. But within a Utopian society, of self-actualized individuals, could fear exist, yet be reasoned through?
A mob mentality may happen under pure democracy, anarchy, or even religiosity. It needs no labels. The mentality is US against THEM. If the people were self-actualized, and they came from a power within/power over dynamic...would the three men feel the need to rape the two women? Rape is about power...
I've dealt with real planners, managers, and committees and they need a leader to give direction and focus, or it desolves into partisain pettiness. Or worse quixotic episodes. So it is a non starter.
I have too. Have you experienced anything other than this? More importantly, have you entertained the idea that there is something beyond this? When I say beyond this, I mean partisan pettiness. Oh, it exists. It is why I offer the idea that a common value, rather than a common ideology may be a solution to the conundrum of existing parties, who don't agree with each other. And I get the paradox, of introducing an idea, without an ideology.
Courts are there when no mediation and compromise can be met? What is the party after being judged is still wronged will they have a system of appeal?
This goes into the area of transgressions, aggressions and variables. If the common ground is based upon inherent value for all human beings, and this realization was the process of taking one's place within a power-with construct, would those areas exist?
I am not trying to oversimplify things. Or maybe I am. You offer a lot of good points... | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/16/2009 9:25:45 PM | | I'm trying to define a rough outline of a society I intend to create (phase III) based on the principles we come up with here. We can dot the i's & cross the t's on its intricacies after it's creation, but I have to have the basic groundwork laid for its creation. we've already agreed on the natural law part, and I think the monetary system shouldn't be a biggie (the hardest part will be integrating it with the existing economy somehow, until the society is self-sustaining.). Maybe the thing to focus on at this point is the structural model, as I feel it is still too nebulous and undefined. we should look at a few options and go over the pros & cons in an effort to determine an optimal form for it. (After some more beer, of course...) | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/16/2009 9:28:11 PM |
they need a leader to give direction and focus
Wrong...They need a coordinator. There is no need nor desire for anyone with higher authority; in fact that is the antithesis of what we are trying to create. | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/16/2009 9:30:53 PM |
And I get the paradox, of introducing an idea, without an ideology.
An Idea can exist without an Ideology, but its impossible for an Ideology to exist without an idea. This is true because an Ideology is:
the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
2. such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.
The very definition embodies "Us against Them". Ideology vs. a similar but opposite Ideology. | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/16/2009 9:48:53 PM |
The very definition embodies "Us against Them"
Right, so any society we want to construct should be as independent of ideology as possible. There should only be the "common ground". | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/16/2009 10:08:58 PM | Zeke... Are you ready?
Anarchy represents the absence of a centralized government. There is a difference between principle and a value system based upon human inherent value.
<div class="quote"> Utopia will never be achieved until everyone in society becomes perfect.
I want to change this up.
Utopia will only be achieved when everyone in society adheres to their own ideal (how close am I to ideology, exo) without stepping on the rights of their fellow brethren. The rights are a given, because we have learned (I even shy away from this terminology), that the moral compass is within (self-actualization), and needs no outer direction. Might the goal, is not to achieve perfection...but to fully engage in the process?
<div class="quote">You can have the perfect system, but if you have imperfect people in it, it's not gonna work... and hence, no Utopia. And just because someone is "self actualized" (and I'm going by what Maslow said about what "self actualized" means), does NOT mean they've achieved perfection.
Maslow's idea of perfection, was based upon individualistic thinking that resulted in across the board of met needs. He wasn't necessarily advocating conformity. Perfection is subjective. How does one define perfection?
<div class="quote">You can have the perfect system, but if you have imperfect people in it, it's not gonna work... and hence, no Utopia. And just because someone is "self actualized" (and I'm going by what Maslow said about what "self actualized" means), does NOT mean they've achieved perfection.
Utopia translates as "no where". A common ideology may exist, or not, but the chance of it happening within a common value system might possibly lead to "somewhere". | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
