United People Declaration poll

[Bollinger]

And yet, despite all my efforts, you continue droning on about this obsessive fixation with the small group of “organised sociopaths” that you believe are busy toiling away in their relentless evil ways to see that we do not prosper.

Bollinger, you have to do more than just say, "You're wrong." You have to show why we are wrong in a clear and indisputable way. I don't have any problem with being shown I am wrong. In fact, it's what I live for, to discover the errors of my thinking. Unfortunately, you are not helping me in that quest. Please try harder.


Chico, I don’t think being right or wrong is the issue. You are right in wanting such a world as painted by the declaration, and you are certainly right in saying there is a lot wrong with the world – and you don’t have to read any book or watch any documentary to see that – but the difference in our views immediately becomes apparent when you outline the causes and therefore the solutions for improving it.

If I’ve understood it correctly you lay the blame squarely on the leaders because you believe them to be sociopaths. What I’ve been saying or at least alluding to in all of my posts in this thread is that humanity itself is not geared up to bring about anything like the things listed in your declaration. What grounds do I have for saying that? You only need to look at any endeavour which requires contribution from more than a handful of people and you can see it straight away. Who is going to be the leader, who is going to do the interesting job and who is going to do the boring one and so on?

Eventually and inevitably you have a situation where people grow resentful of each other and start looking for ways to resist or get away from whatever it is that’s making them unhappy. I see it day in day out at work, on the street, in the supermarket, on the road, in the train, on the bus, on holiday, at the airport and every other place you can think of that needs the collective collaboration of more than one person for it to function.

I just find it laughable that such an intelligent audience as this can allow itself to view the world through such a softly tinted lens and believe in something that is just not possible. I know people don’t like to hear it. I don’t like to hear it but there is no virtue in kidding ourselves that if we can just do this or change that, all will be well.

And Skippy, thanks for attempting some sort of arbitration with your last post but as valiant and noble as the declaration is, Chico and I will just have to agree to disagree on the points I have outlined above and leave it at that.

[Chicodoodoo]

If I’ve understood it correctly you lay the blame squarely on the leaders because you believe them to be sociopaths.

That is the way the current situation has developed, with sociopaths rising to the top and shaping the world according to their destructive aims. But the solution is not to "throw the bums out", because the same situation will eventually redevelop. This is because of the traditional hierarchical structure of society, and like you have said, because of the underlying characteristics of human beings. So we need a solution that will account for the underlying characteristics of human beings, which is something we cannot change. The traditional hierarchical structure of society, however, is something we can change, and that is what the Declaration is leading us towards. So in a way, I agree with you that under the current conditions, all is lost. But we do have the capacity to change a major part of those conditions, meaning the structure of society, in such a way that it will dampen the worst part of humanity, rather than amplify it. By changing from a hierarchical model to a flat holographic model, we can beneficially change the dynamic of our world without having to change the basic nature of humanity.


Who is going to be the leader, who is going to do the interesting job and who is going to do the boring one and so on?

You are stuck in the current paradigm by thinking we must have leaders and stratification (hierarchy). It's the brainwashing we have all been permeated with. We don't need leaders or hierarchies, if we unite and learn to lead ourselves as an organized group. As far as I know, it's never been done before on a global scale. But I have seen enough evidence to convince me that not only can it be done, it must be done.

[dukes4monny]

Leaders are natural.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqfvUA2vRAM&playnext=1&list=PL1701A6C0E90017F0

I have been reviewing a lot of this very interesting thread, and I would suggest that if you haven't yet watched this video suggested by Maria Stade, please do so. In fact the whole series of video's are available on Youtube and I highly recommend that everyone watches them.

When he says "You have to raise your own leaders" this really resonated with me.
This key role in humanity has been usurped, but our problem has been, we didn't realise it.
We cannot blame ourselves for this, nor our ancestors, because, if a problem is unseen, it cannot be resolved.
But now that WE can see the problem, it is incumbent upon us to solve it.

This system has been constructed around us for many generations, and it will likely take many generations to remove it completely, but every journey starts with the first step.
If we resign ourselves to waiting for 'The End' or for some 'Divine intervention', then we are again inviting repetition of the cycle.......do you see?

We must not expect change to happen overnight, or even in any of our current lifetimes. The change must come from within ourselves, this is indeed 'The first step'.
We live in a world that craves instant gratification and instant results, this is our 'Achilles Heel': Ego.
Once we achieve the realisation that there are no 'instant fixes' we can then free our minds to our task, which is to find OUR leaders of the future so that they will find THEIR leaders of the future and each subsequent generations 'step' will help to rebuild Utopia.

As Bill Hicks famously said "It's just a ride" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2hMb4TzmUc). Each time that we return we will be able to see the 'steps' of our ancestors (us) and then we can get to work on the next step.........

I have to say that I have a grudging respect for TPTB, they have been building 'their' vision of the world around us for generations, and have achieved in getting us to believe that it is also our world.

At this time, our role is is to create a new vision. So, instead of discussing new 'rules and regulations' which simply highlight all the wrongs in our current reality, let's put together a strategy for finding and nurturing OUR future leaders.

[buckminster fuller]

jxl40hhpOMM

in case anyone needs motivation...

peace

[dukes4monny]

jxl40hhpOMM

in case anyone needs motivation...

peace

Perfect thanks.........

I never tire of hearing this cover version of one of Bob Marley's greatest songs.

Enjoy

h8hhmqX4WkQ

[Revere]

:bump: Just bumping this forward to see if we can move on to some action ideas and then obviously debate?


Dear Avalonians,

Movements are rarely known by their Declarations. Most organizations rarely move beyond declaring lofty claims and ambitions. As you all see after 12 pages of debate we have mainly stumbled on the Biblical and multi-religious Truth that mankind is fundamentally flawed and must change from within to change without. Very True! So, pray, teach, love and live as you claim. This we all should be doing already.

A movement is only truly remembered by its actions. Let's let the well intended Declaration rest for now and discuss ideas on taking one actual proactive action . Let us see what that debate looks like! It must not be a perfect action but it must be well thought out. Agreeing on an action will tell more about this "potential" movement then 100 declarations.

Is there anyone willing to be first and throw something on the table?

I will after some others go so that I am not accused of setting my own table! Possibly someone else will do the idea for me.

Proactive action...now that would really be something, if we can agree!

Peace,
-R-

P.S. Change to a new Thread if we must

[Bollinger]

If I’ve understood it correctly you lay the blame squarely on the leaders because you believe them to be sociopaths.

That is the way the current situation has developed, with sociopaths rising to the top and shaping the world according to their destructive aims. But the solution is not to "throw the bums out", because the same situation will eventually redevelop. This is because of the traditional hierarchical structure of society, and like you have said, because of the underlying characteristics of human beings. So we need a solution that will account for the underlying characteristics of human beings, which is something we cannot change. The traditional hierarchical structure of society, however, is something we can change, and that is what the Declaration is leading us towards. So in a way, I agree with you that under the current conditions, all is lost. But we do have the capacity to change a major part of those conditions, meaning the structure of society, in such a way that it will dampen the worst part of humanity, rather than amplify it. By changing from a hierarchical model to a flat holographic model, we can beneficially change the dynamic of our world without having to change the basic nature of humanity.


Who is going to be the leader, who is going to do the interesting job and who is going to do the boring one and so on?

You are stuck in the current paradigm by thinking we must have leaders and stratification (hierarchy). It's the brainwashing we have all been permeated with. We don't need leaders or hierarchies, if we unite and learn to lead ourselves as an organized group. As far as I know, it's never been done before on a global scale. But I have seen enough evidence to convince me that not only can it be done, it must be done.


Chico, I have highlighted in red some of your weakest statements yet. You have decided to fling your soul into this particular post, deviating from your normal modus operandi, which is sticking to highly desirable ideals that can neither be tested nor refuted because the definition is so broad that everyone will take it in the best possible way. That’s fine, because it’s what politicians do all day long. So finally you have been tempted to throw in a few specifics like “human nature” and admit it’s a fairly important ingredient in the mix.

You say “we need a solution that will account for the underlying characteristics of human beings, which is something we cannot change”. Accounting for something means to explain it but I’m sure you meant it differently. I think you wanted to say that we need a solution that will factor in the human element e.g. the ego, the competitive nature, the insecurity, anger and anything else you can think of that makes it difficult if not impossible to achieve this Shangri-La. Then you say “the traditional hierarchical structure of society, however, is something we can change, and that is what the Declaration is leading us towards.” By that you must be implying that changing the hierarchical structure of society will lead to changing human nature. If that’s not what you meant, it’s a contradiction because if you admit human nature is prohibitive and cannot be changed, nothing you can say or do can improve our situation. So we’ll go with the first assumption. Where then is the evidence that a change in hierarchical structure can or has ever made one jot of difference to human nature?

Different structures have indeed been tried, changed, revamped and a lot of people lost their lives in the process. Revolutions, civil wars, dictatorships and monarchies have come and gone. Did any of it change human nature one iota? Give me one example where this has happened in any significant way for any significant length of time on any significant scale, and I’ll happily concede the point?

Then, in you final paragraph, the sentence highlighted in red is very telling. It shows you haven’t really thought this through and have simply packaged some interesting sounding ideas into a declaration and sent it out to provoke discussion and intellectual banter. Here is why I say this. You claim “we don't need leaders or hierarchies, if we unite and learn to lead ourselves as an organized group”. Practically every group of species in the animal kingdom has ingrained within it the concept of leadership and a hierarchy. Have you never watched a nature documentary? Have you not seen the apes, the lions, the elephants and even the bees? Some of them decide on who’s going to be the leader through a physical contest. Are the animals also stuck in a paradigm of thinking we must have leaders and hierarchy? Consider a dog that happens to find itself as a pet living in an affluent part of town and then compare his life to another who is scurrying around looking for scraps in a slum waiting to be captured and put down. Should this dog not have the same rights as any other dog? Nature says no. Those are the rules. It’s nothing personal, it’s just business.

The reason I do not rush to offer an alternative solution is because there isn’t one. Our current state of existence imposes upon us a set of rules from which we simply cannot opt out however strong the desire or the wish.

So rather than continue to thrash out tired old ideas that have done the rounds many times before, fizzled out and returned once again to the fore only to fizzle out again, would it not be better to simply resign oneself to doing the best you can for yourself and anyone in your care, under whatever circumstances you happen to be in? Yes it’s difficult, yes it’s hard and at times it can be absolutely unbearable, but c’est la vie, as they say in France.

[buckminster fuller]

So rather than continue to thrash out tired old ideas that have done the rounds many times before, fizzled out and returned once again to the fore only to fizzle out again, would it not be better to simply resign oneself to doing the best you can for yourself and anyone in your care, under whatever circumstances you happen to be in? Yes it’s difficult, yes it’s hard and at times it can be absolutely unbearable, but c’est la vie, as they say in France.

Well, in france we do say "c'est la vie", yet, we have a long history of not surrendering easily. From vercingetorix to robespierre, you will find people that actually succeded in galvanizing and uniting people for the common good. The "human nature" exists in its cultural context, and if the culture changes, this "nature" (really this term means nothing...) will change with it. It is a highly complex process, and it is easily verifiable looking at the changes occurring in individual psychology through time. Take individualism, for instance. In modern days, it has became stronger and stronger, due to the way our consumerist society organised itself. Being an individualist is the worst thing you can think of in terms of societal outcomes. And this is unfortunately where we're at now.
Yet, you will find differences depending on the area of france you are looking at. Often, people living in places with a lot of unemployment and poorness like the north of france, or the east will show a lot more solidarity than peeps living in big rich cities like Paris. Does it mean that the "human nature" is different from one place to another..? Of course not, it is the context, the culture, the history that makes people who they are. It is evident that we need to organize and unite if we want to better our world. Playing the ostrich is definitely not the answer, being selfish neither. Please realise that you already live in a utopian society, and that there is no reason not to change for the better. If you are really stuck that much in the current paradigm I don't even see why you'd participate to such a forum. In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king...

You don't want to be a part of it ? Nothing obliges you to do so. No need to argue there...

Peace

[skippy]

It is evident that we need to organize and unite if we want to better our world. Playing the ostrich is definitely not the answer, being selfish neither.

If we, people of the world, don't unite, then:

- we will be responsible for our own decline
- we will be (part of) the problem (by pursuing our own self-interests on a global scale)
- we will serve the masters of this world as best as we can (through divide and conquer)
- we will destroy our future and those of the generations to come
- we will be hold accountable for the damage done
- we will move naturally towards a post-human/transhuman society
- etc.

The problem is not only "them" but it's also "us".. To unite and to build the new system, humans needs to go beyond self-interets, ego and personal freedom. The enemy is also "us".

[Bollinger]

So rather than continue to thrash out tired old ideas that have done the rounds many times before, fizzled out and returned once again to the fore only to fizzle out again, would it not be better to simply resign oneself to doing the best you can for yourself and anyone in your care, under whatever circumstances you happen to be in? Yes it’s difficult, yes it’s hard and at times it can be absolutely unbearable, but c’est la vie, as they say in France.

Well, in france we do say "c'est la vie", yet, we have a long history of not surrendering easily. From vercingetorix to robespierre, you will find people that actually succeded in galvanizing and uniting people for the common good. The "human nature" exists in its cultural context, and if the culture changes, this "nature" (really this term means nothing...) will change with it. It is a highly complex process, and it is easily verifiable looking at the changes occurring in individual psychology through time. Take individualism, for instance. In modern days, it has became stronger and stronger, due to the way our consumerist society organised itself. Being an individualist is the worst thing you can think of in terms of societal outcomes. And this is unfortunately where we're at now.
Yet, you will find differences depending on the area of france you are looking at. Often, people living in places with a lot of unemployment and poorness like the north of france, or the east will show a lot more solidarity than peeps living in big rich cities like Paris. Does it mean that the "human nature" is different from one place to another..? Of course not, it is the context, the culture, the history that makes people who they are. It is evident that we need to organize and unite if we want to better our world. Playing the ostrich is definitely not the answer, being selfish neither. Please realise that you already live in a utopian society, and that there is no reason not to change for the better. If you are really stuck that much in the current paradigm I don't even see why you'd participate to such a forum. In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king...

You don't want to be a part of it ? Nothing obliges you to do so. No need to argue there...

Peace

Buckminster, I see you’ve decided to carry the torch for this particular argument and you end with a sentiment that tries to shoo me off the thread. But, like Chico and a lot of other people, all I hear are ideals and lofty claims of one sort or another without a single actual example or evidence to suggest that this declaration is worth serious consideration.

Scratching around and looking for something valid to say, you bring up the word individualism as though it is something from which one has the power to opt in or opt out at will. We are all individualists whether we like it or not. You can look in the mirror and curse the blemishes on your face, even refuse to acknowledge them but do they cease to be a part of you because of your indignation? So I wonder who is really playing the ostrich here.

Out of all history you managed one sentence – “from vercingetorix to robespierre, you will find people that actually succeeded in galvanizing and uniting people for the common good” – that is supposed to prove your point. And yet it does no such thing. Yes, there are plenty of examples where individuals have succeeded in “galvanizing” and “uniting” people but did it change their nature? That’s what we are talking about. In order to change the world you have to change human nature, but we can’t do that, so we can’t change the world (in the way that is being desired here at any rate).

Let’s take another sentence from your post: “...it is the context, the culture, the history that makes people who they are. It is evident that we need to organize and unite if we want to better our world.” So now, you start to appeal to even more complex nouns such as “context”, “culture” and “history” to support your ideas. I don’t know how “context” plays any part but I can understand what you mean by “culture” and “history”. Those with superior history and culture fare better than those with a miserable one. That’s interesting; it’s not the evil sociopaths doing it on purpose after all; it all depends on your context, history and culture.

So then, by logical inference, if it really does depend on context, history and culture, we have to change those things instead. And to do that you recommend that we “organise” and “unite”. Once you have organised and united (which isn’t that difficult to do so long as you don’t start ordering people about) then what?

Imagine right now 10,000 people sign up to this thing and make themselves ready and available for whatever it is you want them to do. What are you going to say to them? You might make them all swear allegiance to the declaration but then what? They are awaiting instructions from you because you’ve called them to organise and unite for some purpose. I wouldn’t know what to say to them but I invite anyone to try.

Anyone who thinks they can change the world into some kind of paradise by making declarations, organising and uniting, is engaged in nothing but sophistry and illusion. The reality is that the world changes at its own pace not ours. I can’t help but notice that people come here with a predisposition to believe in things that have no base or precedence in reality. Where they get it from I can guess but you have to sometimes think for yourself and arrive at your own conclusions; not rely solely on other people.

[Chicodoodoo]

Chico, I have highlighted in red some of your weakest statements yet.

Bollinger, it’s clear you’ve jumped into the middle of this without any idea of the necessary background that preceded the Declaration. What you call my “weakest statements” are the key concepts to a totally new way of organizing society. What you have failed to highlight in my post gives you the direction you should pursue in order to understand why these concepts are key. You don’t have a clue as to what I’m talking about, as you have clearly demonstrated and even freely admit. You have no understanding of the role sociopaths play in our civilization, and you have no understanding of how hierarchy plays to their strengths and makes their domination possible. There’s a whole thread you need to study called “Are sociopaths human?” You clearly don’t understand that “leaders” can still function among equals without any real hierarchy. You don’t need to lecture me on hierarchy in the animal kingdom or in human history, as I am not as uninformed or naïve as you so stubbornly presume. Instead, you need to do the necessary research that will allow you to break free of your traditional mindset that is very much the deliberate product of propaganda and mind control. That mind manipulation wants you convinced that there is no alternative solution. That is its purpose – to make sure you accept your slave state. As you have shown us, it works really well. I know, because I was once a victim of it just like you.

I agree with you that one of us must be naïve and uninformed. If you believe it is me, then there is no need to waste your time here. There is no solution, all is lost, and you should spend your time preparing for your world to crumble. And please allow me to spend my time as well preparing for your world to crumble.

[Chicodoodoo]

A movement is only truly remembered by its actions. Let's let the well intended Declaration rest for now and discuss ideas on taking one actual proactive action . Let us see what that debate looks like! It must not be a perfect action but it must be well thought out. Agreeing on an action will tell more about this "potential" movement then 100 declarations.

The next action, in my mind, is for the United People to decide how they will function as a group of equals. We are the United People. We have to build the infrastructure that will guide us in our decision-making, in our self-leadership. It's the next logical step, the same process that the founding fathers of the United States pursued when they wrote the Constitution. Obviously our infrastructure will be much different than the Constitution, since we will have no hierarchy and no representatives. We should design it, build it, and try it out, refining it as we see the need.

I have started that discussion in the original thread, "United People - an Alternative World Order (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?15249-United-People-an-Alternative-World-Order)". So far, no one has picked it up. Maybe now is a good time?

[Bollinger]

Chico, I have highlighted in red some of your weakest statements yet.

Bollinger, it’s clear you’ve jumped into the middle of this without any idea of the necessary background that preceded the Declaration. What you call my “weakest statements” are the key concepts to a totally new way of organizing society. What you have failed to highlight in my post gives you the direction you should pursue in order to understand why these concepts are key. You don’t have a clue as to what I’m talking about, as you have clearly demonstrated and even freely admit. You have no understanding of the role sociopaths play in our civilization, and you have no understanding of how hierarchy plays to their strengths and makes their domination possible. There’s a whole thread you need to study called “Are sociopaths human?” You clearly don’t understand that “leaders” can still function among equals without any real hierarchy. You don’t need to lecture me on hierarchy in the animal kingdom or in human history, as I am not as uninformed or naïve as you so stubbornly presume. Instead, you need to do the necessary research that will allow you to break free of your traditional mindset that is very much the deliberate product of propaganda and mind control. That mind manipulation wants you convinced that there is no alternative solution. That is its purpose – to make sure you accept your slave state. As you have shown us, it works really well. I know, because I was once a victim of it just like you.

I agree with you that one of us must be naïve and uninformed. If you believe it is me, then there is no need to waste your time here. There is no solution, all is lost, and you should spend your time preparing for your world to crumble. And please allow me to spend my time as well preparing for your world to crumble.

Chico, you need to change the record. It's getting tiresome. It's obvious you have no answer to the serious challenges I have put before you and other than referring me to "threads" and "books" and whatever other pond you've been drinking from, you have nothing but delusion on your side. I'll leave you to go quitely mad thinking the world is about to end. Bye.

[Icecold]

There has been far too many personal attacks on this thread for me to continue.

They do prove the point that this whole idea is wrong-headed and conducted in an atmosphere of intolerance and slander.

Enough time spent here.

[skippy]

Without respect nothing can be done, it's all dust.

[dukes4monny]

And they all lived happily ever after. The End

[buckminster fuller]

Buckminster, I see you’ve decided to carry the torch for this particular argument and you end with a sentiment that tries to shoo me off the thread. But, like Chico and a lot of other people, all I hear are ideals and lofty claims of one sort or another without a single actual example or evidence to suggest that this declaration is worth serious consideration.

Well, Bollinger, as you have noticed, this place here is a thread, contained in a forum. It is meant for anyone being a part of it to come and give his 2 cents, which you did and I can only thank you for that. You want to see evidence of what, of an idea..? Or maybe that it worked before ? This is mere rethoric and you're just wasting both your time and ours. There is no element of faith in your discourse, that's perfectly find with me, but don't try to overshadow others with your obvious lack of positivity. You can consider ideals as being naïve or futile, this is a comfortable stance that I've seen many people take already.. Yet it is a sterile position.


Scratching around and looking for something valid to say, you bring up the word individualism as though it is something from which one has the power to opt in or opt out at will. We are all individualists whether we like it or not. You can look in the mirror and curse the blemishes on your face, even refuse to acknowledge them but do they cease to be a part of you because of your indignation? So I wonder who is really playing the ostrich here.

Don't worry, I really have no need to scratch around, I did my homework... but for that, one has to understand the illusory aspect of the world we live in.
My argument is still pretty much valid, and I did put the word individualism in the context of consumerism and materialism. We are not all "individualists", we carry with us our survival instincts, our physiology and our history.. That's all.., as I said in my previous post that is #231, to which you didn't answer, there is no fixed human nature, it is evolving and context dependant.


Out of all history you managed one sentence – “from vercingetorix to robespierre, you will find people that actually succeeded in galvanizing and uniting people for the common good” – that is supposed to prove your point. And yet it does no such thing. Yes, there are plenty of examples where individuals have succeeded in “galvanizing” and “uniting” people but did it change their nature? That’s what we are talking about. In order to change the world you have to change human nature, but we can’t do that, so we can’t change the world (in the way that is being desired here at any rate).

Please see post #231 for this one... I won't repeat myself ..


Let’s take another sentence from your post: “...it is the context, the culture, the history that makes people who they are. It is evident that we need to organize and unite if we want to better our world.” So now, you start to appeal to even more complex nouns such as “context”, “culture” and “history” to support your ideas. I don’t know how “context” plays any part but I can understand what you mean by “culture” and “history”. Those with superior history and culture fare better than those with a miserable one. That’s interesting; it’s not the evil sociopaths doing it on purpose after all; it all depends on your context, history and culture.

See, you're getting it after all.. :) I don't know what "superior history and culture" is, please explain.. You really are not making any point here, and yes, this subject is highly complex.. I can only recommend you (yes, it needs a bit of research...education is key here) to grab a book from Jean Baudrillard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baudrillard) : "The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures".. Or to that instance any book from him, he's been translated in english and is heavily used in universities. (I know it doesn't prove anything, but you've shown a sensibility toward orthodoxy)


So then, by logical inference, if it really does depend on context, history and culture, we have to change those things instead. And to do that you recommend that we “organise” and “unite”. Once you have organised and united (which isn’t that difficult to do so long as you don’t start ordering people about) then what?

I have a designer view of things, I know by experience the true potential of the human mind, and it has been hindered by exactly the view you are hereby defending. We don't lack problem solving capabilities, no matter how complex the equation, what we lack is the social space to let that happen.


Imagine right now 10,000 people sign up to this thing and make themselves ready and available for whatever it is you want them to do. What are you going to say to them? You might make them all swear allegiance to the declaration but then what? They are awaiting instructions from you because you’ve called them to organise and unite for some purpose. I wouldn’t know what to say to them but I invite anyone to try.

Once people unite, they need to organize, there is no need for instructions, but for guidance and education. It is anyway already happening :

N1fiubmOqH4


Anyone who thinks they can change the world into some kind of paradise by making declarations, organising and uniting, is engaged in nothing but sophistry and illusion. The reality is that the world changes at its own pace not ours. I can’t help but notice that people come here with a predisposition to believe in things that have no base or precedence in reality. Where they get it from I can guess but you have to sometimes think for yourself and arrive at your own conclusions; not rely solely on other people.

What you are trying to put as universal laws is only your opinion, and what can be this opinion since you don't want to investigate your true potential, but refer to an old paradigm that kept us enslaved for so long. There is no need for a base or a precedence in reality for things to come to existence. Innovative thinking and ideas (ideals too...) are happening all the time in the spheres of industry, politics, finance.. Those are highly creative sectors and you will no doubt agree about the amount of creativity that goes into them. Why in the world shouldn't we apply creativity to the overall system and instead consider it as being so entropic and so out of reach..? It is still individuals who are implementing it... It is a utopia already.. An ideal... Simply it is the ideal of a minority imposed upon the majority. Without unity this will never change. Reality is view dependant, and truly it changes at different paces, often faster at the individual level. Yet, there are no written rules, but without the intent for that, global changes will not happen, and it starts here, between our ears.. or not...

Allow me to post a bunch of video of myself as a possible eye opener :

djjXyYhnjNQ
SDSMUirE7Rs
LdNkb8JrbkM
6ztFAAzzPhE
hYtQ_-rpAUo

Peace





There has been far too many personal attacks on this thread for me to continue.

They do prove the point that this whole idea is wrong-headed and conducted in an atmosphere of intolerance and slander.

Enough time spent here.

Hi Icecold,

I don't think you're being totally fair here, please have a look back to the thread, including what you wrote. Any constructive discourse is welcome here.

Peace

[Chicodoodoo]

Bollinger’s position is clear. He believes the current situation is our lot in life and it is futile to attempt to change it. When directed to evidence suggesting otherwise ("threads and books"), he refuses to consider it.

Icecold’s position has been repeated several times. He believes labeling certain people that are psychologically deviant and destructive to the common good can only lead to a witch-hunt and result in unjust retribution. When directed to evidence that suggests otherwise (safeguards such as the Golden Rule), he refuses to consider it.

My opinion is also clear. I believe by uniting and organizing, humanity can effect change in a manner that benefits the common good. I’m aware that unity is highly unlikely to be 100% at any given time. There will always be those that disagree with the majority opinion and have little respect for it. That is unavoidable if dissent is to be valued as it should be.

This leads to the next major question a United People must decide. What level of consensus shall be considered “agreement”? A simple majority is highly problematic, and a unanimous majority is often impossible. Somewhere between 51% and 100% lies a workable number. My own thinking has led me to 80% as the necessary threshold, but I would like the community of United People to debate this.

United we stand, but divided we fall. What level of unity allows us to stand? What level of division do we accept as unavoidable?

[Chicodoodoo]

We don't lack problem solving capabilities, no matter how complex the equation, what we lack is the social space to let that happen.

Precisely!


It is a utopia already.. An ideal... Simply it is the ideal of a minority imposed upon the majority. Without unity this will never change.

Precisely!

You nailed it, Bucky. Thank you for that.

[buckminster fuller]

United we stand, but divided we fall. What level of unity allows us to stand? What level of division do we accept as unavoidable?

Really this number is subjective, I see it as well as being in the range you mentioned, that is between 51% and 100%. People who don't vote should also be counted, and if the numbers go above 25% (yet another subjective one), the vote should be cancelled, and the reasons why that many people didn't vote should be looked for, so that another proposal can be made taking those views into account.

[dukes4monny]

Bollinger’s position is clear. He believes the current situation is our lot in life and it is futile to attempt to change it. When directed to evidence suggesting otherwise ("threads and books"), he refuses to consider it.

Icecold’s position has been repeated several times. He believes labeling certain people that are psychologically deviant and destructive to the common good can only lead to a witch-hunt and result in unjust retribution. When directed to evidence that suggests otherwise (safeguards such as the Golden Rule), he refuses to consider it.

My opinion is also clear. I believe by uniting and organizing, humanity can effect change in a manner that benefits the common good. I’m aware that unity is highly unlikely to be 100% at any given time. There will always be those that disagree with the majority opinion and have little respect for it. That is unavoidable if dissent is to be valued as it should be.

This leads to the next major question a United People must decide. What level of consensus shall be considered “agreement”? A simple majority is highly problematic, and a unanimous majority is often impossible. Somewhere between 51% and 100% lies a workable number. My own thinking has led me to 80% as the necessary threshold, but I would like the community of United People to debate this.

United we stand, but divided we fall. What level of unity allows us to stand? What level of division do we accept as unavoidable?

We can take the percentages directly from the poll. We have about 6% who don't agree.
So, if we exterminate them we will have 100% = unity :hail:

[Chicodoodoo]

I see it as well as being in the range you mentioned, that is between 51% and 100%. People who don't vote should also be counted

Only people that vote should be counted. As we have seen with the Declaration poll, many people do not vote. There are 3000+ Avalon members, and less than 150 have voted. This was a very straight-forward poll where you either agree or disagree, for whatever reason you want, and still many elect to not vote. Similarly, even with public voting where you must select one of two candidates, many people do not vote. The reasons for not voting are huge and it is nearly impossible to try to extract rhyme or reason from that number. If I had to give an opinion, I would say most don't vote because they simply aren't interested in the issue.

I think we would be well served if we define consensus as 80% or more of the votes cast during the polling period.

[buckminster fuller]

The reasons for not voting are huge and it is nearly impossible to try to extract rhyme or reason from that number. If I had to give an opinion, I would say most don't vote because they simply aren't interested in the issue.

From what I see happening in france recently, people don't vote mainly because they don't feel like they're actually being represented, or that politics don't have the power to change things. It jeopardizes democracy. Can't we find a way to solve this issue?

[dukes4monny]

The reasons for not voting are huge and it is nearly impossible to try to extract rhyme or reason from that number. If I had to give an opinion, I would say most don't vote because they simply aren't interested in the issue.

From what I see happening in france recently, people don't vote mainly because they don't feel like they're actually being represented, or that politics don't have the power to change things. It jeopardizes democracy. Can't we find a way to solve this issue?

You've hit the nail on the head there. People have actually woken up to the fact that they aren't being REpresented, and they also realise that 'democracy' does not actually mean majority rule it currently means minority rule.
This has been an interesting thread, but it just goes to show the problems which could (would?) exist if there was to be a sudden change of 'power', which is actually very unlikely to happen.
As you also alluded to earlier Bucky, we are viewing this from our existing (old) paradigm because we have no other reference (at least that what I think you meant).
In my opinion, this discussion is trying to put the 'cart before the horse' and we do really need to be discussing how we are going to bring about meaningful 'regime change'.

Perhaps it will be more appropriate to start another thread for this?
Just to start the ball rolling, I think that the American Indians are a good reference point for this, why? well, they have a recent history of living off and with the land but this was brought to an abrupt end by the Christian invaders.
They have been through many struggles in trying to maintain their identity, having battles with themselves, their oppressors and also drink and drugs, but, importantly, against all the odds their cultural identity has survived.
I haven't yet finished it, but I have been reading this interview (http://www.dickshovel.com/dino.html) with an American Indian called Darelle "Dino" Butler which has opened my eyes to how they have been suppressed, and are slowly battling back.
If people are ready for a serious discussion of 'regime change' then I wll start a new thread?

[Chicodoodoo]

From what I see happening in france recently, people don't vote mainly because they don't feel like they're actually being represented, or that politics don't have the power to change things. It jeopardizes democracy. Can't we find a way to solve this issue?

We are solving this issue. When people represent themselves, they can't feel like they aren't being represented. When people represent themselves, politics does have the power to change things, and it does it according to the will of the people (unlike now).

Having lived in France, I noticed the general population is a bit more sophisticated and better informed than Americans. It's probably true that in France, the people have already realized that their vote has no real meaning. In the United States, most people are still under the illusion that they are making the choices, when in fact the political game is just a facade to keep the masses deceived and deluded.

[buckminster fuller]

Last elections we had (last week, for "region" representatives), there was around 40% abstention, meaning the guys who got elected were only getting 30% of the potential votes... The fact that it was "local" elections makes it even worse, as people interest is still best represented on a local scale. I agree that a shift in power, holding people directly responsible for themselves should get the number of abstention votes down.

Edit : I still see the number of abstention vote as a criteria for a healthy democracy...

[Chicodoodoo]

In my opinion, this discussion is trying to put the 'cart before the horse' and we do really need to be discussing how we are going to bring about meaningful 'regime change'.

Regime change has two definitions. One is a change in leadership, and the other is the overthrow of a government. Which one are you talking about?

What I'm proposing with the United People idea is neither one of these. Changing the leadership obviously makes no real difference, as we have been doing this throughout our history. In the USA, we supposedly do this every four years, and yet things still keep getting progressively worse. Overthrowing a system of government makes no real difference either, because we having been doing that as well throughout history. Here in America, we did that in 1776, and in 200 years we became a mirror image of the empire we rebelled against.

What we need is a completely new way of governing ourselves that has never been tried before by humans on a global scale. This new system should reflect the successes found in the natural world, which are typically holographic and fractal in nature. I think the new system will have many similarities to the traditional tribal system found among Native Americans, which was a very "flat" model (with little hierarchy) based on respect and group consensus.

[buckminster fuller]

You've hit the nail on the head there. People have actually woken up to the fact that they aren't being REpresented, and they also realise that 'democracy' does not actually mean majority rule it currently means minority rule.
This has been an interesting thread, but it just goes to show the problems which could (would?) exist if there was to be a sudden change of 'power', which is actually very unlikely to happen.
As you also alluded to earlier Bucky, we are viewing this from our existing (old) paradigm because we have no other reference (at least that what I think you meant).
In my opinion, this discussion is trying to put the 'cart before the horse' and we do really need to be discussing how we are going to bring about meaningful 'regime change'.

That is what the declaration is about, a first statement to get people to unite and then to organize. We can look for answers as to how we can initiate change, but then, the modalities of the new system will have to be discussed and researched, and this stage can only take advantage of a true, widespread, collaborative work, done by people chosen by the people for the good reasons. Those reasons will have to be defined through the arguments of the declaration. I might jump ahead here, it is how I "feel" it should evolve. Uniting remains the key, prior to organizing.



Perhaps it will be more appropriate to start another thread for this?
Just to start the ball rolling, I think that the American Indians are a good reference point for this, why? well, they have a recent history of living off and with the land but this was brought to an abrupt end by the Christian invaders.
They have been through many struggles in trying to maintain their identity, having battles with themselves, their oppressors and also drink and drugs, but, importantly, against all the odds their cultural identity has survived.
I haven't yet finished it, but I have been reading this interview (http://www.dickshovel.com/dino.html) with an American Indian called Darelle "Dino" Butler which has opened my eyes to how they have been suppressed, and are slowly battling back.
If people are ready for a serious discussion of 'regime change' then I wll start a new thread?

What we need to do is to get people to unite despite their social, cultural status. Each having different ties to the system. Unfortunately, not all cultures have a recent history of freedom like the indians. More like a history of slaves, not much to hold on to...I started reading Butler's story, and this man's life sets an example in terms of our capacity to evolve so as to be able to overcome our own demons. I will tell you what I think about it when I finish to read it.
Please specify what you want to be the subject of the new thread you want to open, it might just be a mirror of the original "United people" (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?15249-United-People-an-Alternative-World-Order) thread.

peace

[panopticon]

G'day Chicodoodoo,

I have not responded or participated in this process.

Amongst the respondents there seemed to be a number who qualified their position following the vote casting.

Have you asked the question why people didn't vote in this poll?
Have you looked at the way a position is created in the polls wording?
This is in the form of a referendum:

Can you support the United People Declaration?
YES, I support the Declaration
NO, I do not support the Declaration

So by simplified example:


Do you mind the colour red?
YES, I Love Red!
No, I hate Red!

#######

---- Declaration of the colour red ----
The colour Red is Good And Pure!
All who Don't like Red are Evil and Nasty.
There is an Evil Empire that has a multiple coloured flag Without Red!
They Don't like Red! They are Evil and Nasty!
---- End Declaration of the colour red ----

#######

I vote yes because I am not evil and nasty.

Others may have agreed because it "appeared" harmless, easy to understand and "safe".

One little voice inside my head (there's a few in there!) viewed it a bit differently:

Question: Can you support the 'United People Declaration'?
Internal Dialogue: Well yes I can, it sounds nice, warm and cozy. Can I support it? Certainly could!
'Yes, I support the Declaration'.. Just a second that's not the question! The question was 'can I' not 'do I'.
Hmmm.
'No, I do not support the Declaration'.. Just a second that's not the question either! I was asked can I support it! I answered yes because I could support it.
I don't want to answer no because then I'm saying I don't support people having enough to eat, drink and all those nice warm fuzzy things that I want everybody to have! So I must vote yes! But the question wasn't 'do I' it was 'can I'. People who vote NO are bad people. It says so in the Declaration! I don't want to be a bad person. I don't want to look silly. I will vote YES because I am a good clever person.
Peer group pressure and directed questioning may have had a part to play in this poll.
I am sure it was not intentional on your part but pointed it out so as to be clear why this particular individual did not vote in this poll.

Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

[Chicodoodoo]

Have you looked at the way a position is created in the polls wording?
This is in the form of a referendum:

Can you support the United People Declaration?
YES, I support the Declaration
NO, I do not support the Declaration

To be perfectly consistent, I should have changed the word "Can" to "Do", or put "can" and "cannot" in the responses. I really didn't imagine it would cause any confusion. It seemed like a simple Yes/No choice, meaning you either support the Declaration or you don't. I'll try to do better next time.


Others may have agreed because it "appeared" harmless, easy to understand and "safe".

If you are talking about the contents of the Declaration, others may have agreed because it makes a lot of sense.


One little voice inside my head (there's a few in there!) viewed it a bit differently:

I suspect those voices in your head would have caused you some trouble no matter how well the Declaration was worded.


Peer group pressure and directed questioning may have had a part to play in this poll.

I seriously doubt it, as it is a private poll and no one need know how you voted.


I am sure it was not intentional on your part but pointed it out so as to be clear why this particular individual did not vote in this poll.

Thanks. It's always useful to know why people refuse to vote.

[panopticon]

G'day Chicodoodoo,

I find it interesting that you have opted for this change of tactics now.


If you are talking about the contents of the Declaration, others may have agreed because it makes a lot of sense.
Indeed it is their right to disagree, as it is mine.
I was pointing out that your question was loaded.


I suspect those voices in your head would have caused you some trouble no matter how well the Declaration was worded.
Yes very funny. I regret my little joke about my internal dialogue as you have opted to manipulate it into your argument.


I really didn't imagine it would cause any confusion. It seemed like a simple Yes/No choice, meaning you either support the Declaration or you don't. I'll try to do better next time.

Just because you say you 'didn't imagine it would cause any confusion' doesn't negate the fact that the question was loaded.
Again I ask Should I have chosen red?

As for your statement around peer pressure...

I seriously doubt it, as it is a private poll and no one need know how you voted.
From the outset there were queries as to 'Who the hell is that one person who voted 'No'?' (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?16690-United-People-Declaration-poll&p=179429&viewfull=1#post179429).
That is pretty well the definition of peer pressure.
As the Asch Conformity Experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments) (and to some extent the Milgram Obedience Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment)) illustrate peer pressure has a definite effect on the reaction/responses of individuals.
The fact you didn't see a problem is in itself a problem...


Thanks. It's always useful to know why people refuse to vote.

I didn't 'refuse' to vote.
Wasn't aware the poll existed until I posted here and then looked at it and decided to not vote and stated my reason why.
By saying I refused to vote you are inferring more meaning to my actions.
I was not and do not intend to be antagonistic towards you.
I pointed out a possible fault in your polling question.
That is all.
As for my not responding to the poll.
I made a personal choice.
Your argumentative posturing has not altered my position.

Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

[dukes4monny]

Sorry, but I still haven't got used to the multi-quote method on this forum. This is a reply to Chicodoodoo's post #277 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?16690-United-People-Declaration-poll&p=188591&viewfull=1#post188591) and Buck'y post #278 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?16690-United-People-Declaration-poll&p=188602&viewfull=1#post188602).

For me this Declaration, although well phrased and well intentioned is always going to be flawed.........I will try and explain what I mean by this. **WARNING** those of a philosophical or ideological disposition please look away now........
I apologise for using a computer system as a metaphor, but I hope it helps. I am going right back to basics here, so please stick with me.........

When we are born, our minds are all exactly the same, we are running a basic operating system called 'Human Being 1.0'.
We then begin to upload a new operating system, these are installed from our local environment, mostly our close family. This upload takes a long time, but when successful, we are then referred to as an 'individual' or 'adult'.

If we are born into an indigenous tribe (Australian Aborigines - American Indians etc.), the new operating system that is uploaded is fully compatible with the 'Human Being 1.0' system that is already running and can be seen as an upgrade. In this environment, the 'individual' understands the importance of the environment and the other creatures that inhabit the world around them and knows instinctively how to live in harmony with it, they are now running 'Human Being 2.0'.

If we are born into the western world, the new operating system, instead of being an update is a totally new operating system that has been corrupted by a virus called 'Philosophy 1.0'. This virus has been there so long that it has been accepted as the new operating system without question and is automatically uploaded to all new human beings thereafter.
This program called 'Philosophy 1.0' doesn't tell us to work with the environment, it creates reasoned arguments that tell us to use the environment for *our own gains, in fact it works against the environment, but more importantly, 'Philosophy 1.0' has overwritten 'Human Being 1.0' completely which no longer exists.
*When I say 'our' you could replace this with 'their' (tptb).

So what's my point? Like it or not, we in the western world are running a faulty operating system which has no concept of how to live WITH our environment, our program only tells us how to live off the environment.........the 'Human Being 1.0' no longer exists, it's been erased.
Our 'Philosophy 1.0' program keeps taking over, and any philosophical argument puts down an anchor that says this is my understanding and nothing else matters.
THIS IS THE PROGRAM THAT WE ARE ALL RUNNING....and yes I do include myself in the WE. If you go back and read the Declaration and the rest of this thread, we begin to realise that it to is running on 'Philosophy 1.0', we are reflecting what we see around us......it's the only reference that we have.

What I see in these remaining indigenous tribes are individuals who are still running a version of 'Human Being 2.0', and I firmly believe that if we are to solve the problems that have existed in the Western culture for a very long time, we must make use of what's left of this 'Human Being 2.0' program and start uploading it to our new Human Beings so that they can start to sort out the centuries of problems caused by 'Philosophy 1.0'.

So, if there is anyone still reading this (sorry I didn't intend it to go on so long), are we ready to have a non philosophical / ideological discussion about how we can achieve this goal?
I'm sure that someone will point out that I have used this philosophical point or that one, I myself am trying to learn to avoid these 'traps', but I'm sure that I've fallen into some of them.........

So, if it is to be a new thread, how about a title of 'Are we ready to upload Human Being 2.0?'

[skippy]

So, if it is to be a new thread, how about a title of 'Are we ready to upload Human Being 2.0?'

Please dukes4monny, guide us into the world, called Human Being 2.0. I'll be present if you kick-off a new thread discussion.

Skip.

[panopticon]

G'day dukes4monny,

You have made an excellent series of points.
There are many who would agree with your points in this post though, as you point out, would probably call it different names.

Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

[buckminster fuller]

For me this Declaration, although well phrased and well intentioned is always going to be flawed.........I will try and explain what I mean by this. **WARNING** those of a philosophical or ideological disposition please look away now........
I apologise for using a computer system as a metaphor, but I hope it helps. I am going right back to basics here, so please stick with me.........

When we are born, our minds are all exactly the same, we are running a basic operating system called 'Human Being 1.0'.
We then begin to upload a new operating system, these are installed from our local environment, mostly our close family. This upload takes a long time, but when successful, we are then referred to as an 'individual' or 'adult'.

If we are born into an indigenous tribe (Australian Aborigines - American Indians etc.), the new operating system that is uploaded is fully compatible with the 'Human Being 1.0' system that is already running and can be seen as an upgrade. In this environment, the 'individual' understands the importance of the environment and the other creatures that inhabit the world around them and knows instinctively how to live in harmony with it, they are now running 'Human Being 2.0'.

If we are born into the western world, the new operating system, instead of being an update is a totally new operating system that has been corrupted by a virus called 'Philosophy 1.0'. This virus has been there so long that it has been accepted as the new operating system without question and is automatically uploaded to all new human beings thereafter.
This program called 'Philosophy 1.0' doesn't tell us to work with the environment, it creates reasoned arguments that tell us to use the environment for *our own gains, in fact it works against the environment, but more importantly, 'Philosophy 1.0' has overwritten 'Human Being 1.0' completely which no longer exists.
*When I say 'our' you could replace this with 'their' (tptb).

So what's my point? Like it or not, we in the western world are running a faulty operating system which has no concept of how to live WITH our environment, our program only tells us how to live off the environment.........the 'Human Being 1.0' no longer exists, it's been erased.
Our 'Philosophy 1.0' program keeps taking over, and any philosophical argument puts down an anchor that says this is my understanding and nothing else matters.
THIS IS THE PROGRAM THAT WE ARE ALL RUNNING....and yes I do include myself in the WE. If you go back and read the Declaration and the rest of this thread, we begin to realise that it to is running on 'Philosophy 1.0', we are reflecting what we see around us......it's the only reference that we have.

What I see in these remaining indigenous tribes are individuals who are still running a version of 'Human Being 2.0', and I firmly believe that if we are to solve the problems that have existed in the Western culture for a very long time, we must make use of what's left of this 'Human Being 2.0' program and start uploading it to our new Human Beings so that they can start to sort out the centuries of problems caused by 'Philosophy 1.0'.

So, if there is anyone still reading this (sorry I didn't intend it to go on so long), are we ready to have a non philosophical / ideological discussion about how we can achieve this goal?
I'm sure that someone will point out that I have used this philosophical point or that one, I myself am trying to learn to avoid these 'traps', but I'm sure that I've fallen into some of them.........

So, if it is to be a new thread, how about a title of 'Are we ready to upload Human Being 2.0?'

What I think we need to do is write down 'Philosophy 2.0'. 'Human Being' is anyway the operating system. I'm not sure we can separate discourse around big subjects like a new society paradigm and philosophy. Philosophy is a tool, just like ethics, creativity, etc..

from wikipedia :
"Philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3] The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom""

You might be confusing philosophy and ideology ..? Ideologies are traps for the mind, no doubt, yet their initial components can't always be refuted. It is the way they've been implemented that is the problem. Preconceptions, old neural networks might be the problem, not so much the idea itself.
It's important to understand how historically, truly philanthropic ideologies didn't make it "to the street" .


peace

[buckminster fuller]

One little voice inside my head (there's a few in there!) viewed it a bit differently:

Question: Can you support the 'United People Declaration'?
Internal Dialogue: Well yes I can, it sounds nice, warm and cozy. Can I support it? Certainly could!
'Yes, I support the Declaration'.. Just a second that's not the question! The question was 'can I' not 'do I'.
Hmmm.
'No, I do not support the Declaration'.. Just a second that's not the question either! I was asked can I support it! I answered yes because I could support it.
I don't want to answer no because then I'm saying I don't support people having enough to eat, drink and all those nice warm fuzzy things that I want everybody to have! So I must vote yes! But the question wasn't 'do I' it was 'can I'. People who vote NO are bad people. It says so in the Declaration! I don't want to be a bad person. I don't want to look silly. I will vote YES because I am a good clever person.
Peer group pressure and directed questioning may have had a part to play in this poll.
I am sure it was not intentional on your part but pointed it out so as to be clear why this particular individual did not vote in this poll.

Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon


Humm.. I understand your position, but isn't that a little far fetched...? Although you are right about the fact that "do" or "do not" would have brought some clarity to the question, the way you chose to analyse it could have remained an internal dialogue? It is all about the way one stands from the start. One can either feel inclined to follow good ideas that make sense to him, or feel like he's being forced into something by others when really, it is only a personal view of it.. What are you really telling us here.?

You are only addressing the form, and being both pernickety and sceptical. I wish you can come out with more constructive arguments.

peace

[dukes4monny]

Ok, so as not to divert things too far away from the original intent of this thread, I have started a new one here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?17512-Are-we-ready-to-upload-Human-Being-2.0&p=188834&viewfull=1#post188834).

[panopticon]

Humm.. I understand your position, but isn't that a little far fetched...? Although you are right about the fact that "do" or "do not" would have brought some clarity to the question, the way you chose to analyse it could have remained an internal dialogue? It is all about the way one stands from the start. One can either feel inclined to follow good ideas that make sense to him, or feel like he's being forced into something by others when really, it is only a personal view of it.. What are you really telling us here.?

You are only addressing the form, and being both pernickety and sceptical. I wish you can come out with more constructive arguments.

peace

G'day buckminster fuller,

You have made some exceptionally good points.
My point was that the question was loaded.
It's like a wife asking her husband 'Do I look fat in these shorts?'
There's a loaded question any male should run from!

The question had design faults and I have stated what these were a number of times.
I do not wish to get into a discussion that is unnecessarily philosophically pedantic or discipline specific.
The question was loaded. Simple.

The fact I didn't respond to the poll question was because the question was more like the colour red question (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?16690-United-People-Declaration-poll&p=188637&viewfull=1#post188637) I mentioned a few posts back.


One can either feel inclined to follow good ideas that make sense to him
I was trying to assist someone who seemed to have an interesting idea.
This appears to have been missed.


You are only addressing the form, and being both pernickety and sceptical. I wish you can come out with more constructive arguments.
I was commenting on the form.
This was indeed 'pernickty and skeptical' because I was trying to assist Chicodoodoo in future questionnaire formation.


What are you really telling us here.?
I was really telling you that the question was loaded...
There was no secret meaning, no hidden agenda.
The question was structured in a way that directed the respondents towards one answer.
In an instance where this is done there is no point in asking the question except for self affirmation.
I did not think that was the purpose of the poll.
Was I wrong to ask:


Have you asked the question why people didn't vote in this poll?
Have you looked at the way a position is created in the polls wording?
I then proceeded to put forward an opinion in answer to these questions so as to assist Chicodoodoo in the future.
The thread appeared dead and I do not like to use the PM or chat system.
I saw no harm in commenting on the poll question itself in a way that was viewable by any member of the forum.
Everything I say is viewable by anyone at any time.
I believe in transparency and freedom of information, as I am sure many others here do as well.


the way you chose to analyse it could have remained an internal dialogue
Point taken and I shall return to my lifetime habit of not participating in loaded questionnaires.
All I was trying to do was help Chicodoodoo in his question formation and point out the different factors (peer group pressure for one) that can skew a data set.
My participation in this thread seems to have been misinterpreted and I apologise for my attempt at assisting.
I learn from my errors.

Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

[buckminster fuller]

Point taken and I shall return to my lifetime habit of not participating in loaded questionnaires.
All I was trying to do was help Chicodoodoo in his question formation and point out the different factors (peer group pressure for one) that can skew a data set.
My participation in this thread seems to have been misinterpreted and I apologise for my attempt at assisting.
I learn from my errors.

Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

I appreciate you took the time to answer in a detailed manner. I can see that you've been trying to help here, and I do thank you for that. My point should have been: you found a flow in the declaration form, which you kindly pointed out to Chico. You then go on explaining to us that this flow is the reason why you decide not to participate. I'm confident you understand nobody is trying to fool people here and that the intent remains pretty much philanthropic and ethical. Would you have taken position if the declaration poll had been in the form you suggested? Do you think that this is the reason by which many people didn't even want to participate?

You think it is worth your assistance, but not your vote ?
It is helping in one way, and discrediting in the other.. Hence my question.

Thanks for participating your way, anyway .. :)

Edit : Lifetime habits are dangerous man, beware...:hand:

[Tao O]

I say it is one thing to save us from oppressive, power and money seeking leaders, but we need to save us from ourselves as well. Human nature is full of ignorance, and arrogance.... delusion, jealousy, psychological dysfunction, immaturity, underdeveloped minds and hearts, absent of true compassion, understanding, lacking in true intelligence/wisdom, every bit as selfish and greedy as those at the top...so until the average human heart is living from a higher Spiritual Nature...there will persist the desire to dictate, hide (not be transparent), lie, cheat, steal, and be a herd of sheep who feel entitled to have it all. I feel the problem lies is each one of us...and that kind of evolution is up to each person to want and search for.

It is very hard for three people to decide where to go for dinner. So unless you have a magic wand that will turn us all into wise and powerful sages...who love beyond their personal needs and self, maybe it is enough to learn to 'swim' in the world as it is. We cannot even be entirely responsible for one other person. And most of us have learned that another's mindset is a difficult thing to change. And why would you, we all must grow from where we are, living the peaks and valleys of life and making our changes and personal growth as it naturally occurs.

Kind intentions, acts of generosity, granting superior qualities to one's potential is not the same as transforming each heart and mind to actualize that potential. It is difficult enough for one to walk their talk...so good luck in manifesting your ideal reality.

Stay awake out there...quantum-ly w/love

[panopticon]

I appreciate you took the time to answer in a detailed manner. I can see that you've been trying to help here, and I do thank you for that. My point should have been: you found a flow in the declaration form, which you kindly pointed out to Chico. You then go on explaining to us that this flow is the reason why you decide not to participate. I'm confident you understand nobody is trying to fool people here and that the intent remains pretty much philanthropic and ethical. Would you have taken position if the declaration poll had been in the form you suggested? Do you think that this is the reason by which many people didn't even want to participate?
You think it is worth your assistance, but not your vote?
It is helping in one way, and discrediting in the other.. Hence my question.


G'day buckminster fuller,



I appreciate you took the time to answer in a detailed manner. I can see that you've been trying to help here, and I do thank you for that.
Not a problem. I was trying to clear up what I had been trying to do.



My point should have been: you found a flow in the declaration form, which you kindly pointed out to Chico. You then go on explaining to us that this flow is the reason why you decide not to participate.
I am assuming that you mean 'flaw' and that 'flow' is a typo.
If so then that is correct. The question was loaded and I will not participate when I am being directed to do something, even if it is an accident. The first step is the hardest. From there it is a slippery slope.
I am not saying anyone was deliberately being unethical only that my morals would not allow me to vote in a loaded questionaire.


I'm confident you understand nobody is trying to fool people here and that the intent remains pretty much philanthropic and ethical.
Um, yeah I guess. I don't know you from a bar of soap mate.
You could be a 15 year old girl named Stacey living in a council flat.
I can only go on the perceived actions exhibited by a poster.
Are you 15, 38 or 89? I don't know any more than what you tell me.
So I am not confident that there are not games being played here by the 'unknown others'.
A persona may be presented as a front to 'curry favour' with a select audience.
I go on action/reaction responses. That is all.
So far everythings seems alright in this thread but I am always wary.
I remember voicing concern at the 'enlightened' persona and complaining about all the lemmings (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?13572-RULERS-Questions-for-Charles-volume-2&p=132191&viewfull=1#post132191)...



Would you have taken position if the declaration poll had been in the form you suggested? Do you think that this is the reason by which many people didn't even want to participate?
I don't like to participate in hypothetical autopsies of past discussions.
They are mostly pointless "Should I have said this they would have said this" rubbish that serves no purpose other than to get people second guessing their actions.
However...
I know I opened myself up to this by trying to help so...
The Declaration poll was flawed.
Would I have responded if it had been differently asked?
If it wasn't loaded to direct me towards a response and then if I found it before its 'use by date' and then if it interested me then probably.
More than that is hypothetical and serves no purpose.


Do you think that this is the reason by which many people didn't even want to participate?
Some people just 'feel' when a question is 'wrong'. I don't know if more would have responded if it had been asked differently. There are way too many variables to be able to give a response to that question.


You think it is worth your assistance, but not your vote?
It is helping in one way, and discrediting in the other.. Hence my question.
No you don't.
Up until then you were respectful of my position and seemed genuine in your questioning.
This last question is trying to place me in the position of dominated.
'Hence my question'
In response to your questions, I shall state once again clearly and concisely:
The poll question was flawed. Anything else is pointless hypotheticals on hypotheticals.

'worth your assistance, but not your vote' 'helping in one way and discrediting in the other'.
Hahahahahahaha. Good one!
You almost had me then. It's nearly 2:00 am and I'm tired.

Got a big weekend cutting up gum trees for firewood.
Had a foot and a half of rain last week and the bush access road is, well, no longer an access to anything!
So will probably not be online again for a few days.
I apologise now but there's not much I can do about it.
'Til then.

'Scratch ya on the flip side!'

Love, peace, brown rice, soya sauce, the wickered witch is a cabbage patch kid!

Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

[Revere]

Guys,

Man!!! The life has been debated out of this whole Thread. We all need to back our egos out of this whole thing. We are reinforcing the whole flawed humanity paradigm here in real time.

Here are my ideas in a spirit of progress to and for action. Hopefully, they will be helpful. I will not be back for a point by point debate session in defense of "my" ideas. Nope sorry, my ego needs no defense so, suggest ideas not just criticism. Really, I have read a belly full of tail chasing. So, let’s move on please! O.K. here I go :peace:

First, drop voting schemes for now. They are useless until we have something to vote on. No debate before it's time.

Second, stop requiring a vote on a Declaration. Let people vote in the end by spending their energy towards doing an action we put forward. Votes are about as meaningful as debating votes at this time. So, I humbly suggest working the Declaration into a statement of Intention or a Mission Statement worded from an ultra positive perspective. Let's heed the wisdom of Mother Teresa, "I will never attend an anti-war rally but call me when you are having a Peace Rally" (quote was extremely paraphrased…oh and notice it was about action!). Please consider the two completely different energies, with two different tones/vibes, for the two different rallies. Tone is critical if you believe in consciousness and attraction. I do!

Third, open a Thread for ideas on an action item we can get behind and do. I promise I will contribute one idea as well that I really like (PM me when open). Once we have one, if it is good it will attract those with good intentions that vibrate with it. Like minds will be drawn to it. The old" build it and they will come" concept. Yea, then we will have action in lieu of endless debate.

Hey, I am not trying to criticize anyone. I am trying to generate action to move this forward. THAT IS WHAT I CRAVE! If you guys hate these ideas no problem, I will move on with my own action items. But, I want to see Avalon unite and become a catalyst for a paradigm change from the PTB nightmare. Please God give us wisdom to move forward! AMEN!

Love and Peace,
-R-

[Chicodoodoo]

I’m not seeing a true desire to be helpful from Panopticon. Instead, I am seeing a desire to be deliberately contentious. Regardless of how the poll question is asked, and regardless of how the Declaration is worded, I think Panopticon would find it a loaded question in any event.

The poll question is about as simple as you can get. Panopticon can argue that it depends on the definition of “do”, “can”, and “support”, but I see this as the Bill Clinton defense – “It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is.”

And we all know why Bill Clinton chose this defense. It was because he didn’t have a leg to stand on.

[skippy]

Third, open a Thread for ideas on an action item we can get behind and do. I promise I will contribute one idea as well that I really like

Revere, I invite you to kick-off a new thread with one of your ideas. :mullet: Excellent initiative to bring some new life in this ping-pong match!

[Revere]

Third, open a Thread for ideas on an action item we can get behind and do. I promise I will contribute one idea as well that I really like

Revere, I invite you to kick-off a new thread with one of your ideas. :mullet: Excellent initiative to bring some new life in this ping-pong match!

OK but it will have to wait till tomorrow. I have to go to a meeting...I want to do it right and not hurry. So, until tomorrow friends.

Peace,

-R-

[Gardener]

Bollinger ->And yet, despite all my efforts, you continue droning on about this obsessive fixation with the small group of “organised sociopaths” that you believe are busy toiling away in their relentless evil ways to see that we do not prosper. So, I wouldn’t use the word absurd against other people if I were you!

Whilst I do not agree with everything chico says; on this particular subject I am afraid he is 100% correct. It is most definitly not a fixation, it is something every feeling, intelligent person needs to see and know at a visceral level, otherwise any of us could fall under their spell they are not just at government level, or prisons.
Chico says they account for 2%, that is conservative, it is at least 4% and probably higher; in forensic populations it is 16% plus. Think about it, 4% of the people you are coming into contact with on a daily basis are PSYCHOPATHS, very clever ones because they have not yet been uncovered in their behaviour.

Their inherrant skills provide them with their ability to rise to the top in any organisation, its called manipulation, lies, charm, and an abiding lack of conscience which allows them to do just what they need to do. In one of the UK prisons, in one year, 2007 one psychopath succeeded in getting five of the female members of staff pregnant...... using manipulation, lies, charm and a total lack of conscience. To disregard the psychopath/sociopath, is to not be able to understand how people can do the things they do, it goes from the top to the bottom, in all walks of life. The main part of the problem is that 'normal' (with conscience and moral core) people can not understand how anyone can behave in a conscienceless and different way. They are a different species.

I highly recommend you read Political Ponerology; and Snakes in Suits, Hare & Babiek, also Without Conscience, Robert Hare.
g

[Nyce555]

You've got my vote!!! I wonder why folks voted no. :confused:

[Revere]

Third, open a Thread for ideas on an action item we can get behind and do. I promise I will contribute one idea as well that I really like

Revere, I invite you to kick-off a new thread with one of your ideas. :mullet: Excellent initiative to bring some new life in this ping-pong match!

OK but it will have to wait till tomorrow. I have to go to a meeting...I want to do it right and not hurry. So, until tomorrow friends.

Peace,

-R-

O.K. here is the link to the "United People Action Ideas" Thread.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?17587-United-People-Action-Ideas&p=189487&viewfull=1#post189487

[Chicodoodoo]

Look UP.

United People.

Lots of humans say it can’t be done.

Here’s just a peek at what is possible when humanity unites and organizes.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/eric_whitacre_a_virtual_choir_2_000_voices_strong. html (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/eric_whitacre_a_virtual_choir_2_000_voices_strong. html)

We just need to unite as a group and organize the process of how we will function together. Once we do this, we will create our own magnificent music, music beyond even this:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7o7BrlbaDs&playnext=1&list=PL41D1F5D9950B73CC

[greg]

Hi,

This is my first post on the forum. I just want to tell that i vote yes on the United People Declaration. I think that is the first step for a better world. Thank to Chicodoodoo for doing this great job.

By the way the video above is just amazing !

Excuse me for my poor english, it's quite a bit difficult for me to write in english again, but I do my best ;)

[dmarie]

#111 Yes

Thank for putting so much time and energy into this Declaration, Chicodoodoo!

Also, the video is very inspirational! It's always beautiful to see what humans can create when working together.