Dear Andrea -- dear All -- good Saturday morning from Santa Barbara --

Andrea, you ask some good questions -- questions that I think are natural, and might arise in the thinking of many people. I've heard some of these questions before, and I agree they need to be discussed...

So let me take a crack at going through your concerns, one at a time...

ANDREA: Won't the 'motivated activists' and experts fulfill their role as an integral piece of the global jig-saw puzzle without our intervention at all?

BRUCE: Mmmmmmm -- well -- my opinion is -- not really...

Let me see if I can say why.

One facet of my response would be -- "conscious evolution".

We don't get answers to the huge questions that face the human race "by magic".

It takes hard work, careful development, and cool growth.

It takes conscious awareness, education, good method, discipline, doing things "intentionally", seeing a vision and following it, testing it, refining it, proving that it can work, getting people on board, growing it...

But -- maybe all those intervening steps are not visible to somebody from a long ways away.

A couple of examples:

1) The cure for polio. Polio was a huge problem. People were still getting it when I was young. Our President FDR had it. My cousin had it. But Dr. Jonas Salk was out there, working his tail off with brilliant ideas -- and he came up a vaccination process that could stop it. He got the science working right, he got the product development working right, he got the marketing and distribution working right -- and poof, polio more or less went away. If we were standing back at great distance, and didn't know about any of that, we might say, "Wow, polio went away by itself, we didn't have to do anything...."

2) The Golden Gate Bridge. For years, people in the California Bay Area had to commute back and forth from Marin County to San Francisco using ferry boats. It was time-consuming, expensive, and inefficient. Dreamers imagined a huge beautiful bridge that could make the connection. But it was visionary, daring, politically controversial, and hard to pull off. One stalwart design engineer had a vision it could work, and he started doing everything it would take. He worked on the designs, he worked on the huge political issues, he worked on the funding, he got the doors open. Contractors and developers and thousands of courageous workers showed up. Over a few years, they build this amazing bridge. Boom. But did that happen "by itself"? If you went to sleep in Berkeley on the day they started building it, and woke up the day they opened it, looking out your window, you might say -- magic, a bridge appeared, see, God does this stuff. And maybe that's true. Maybe God did do it. Maybe it was "divine evolution". But if so -- the active agency of that magic involved the visionary work, the planning, the organizing, the funding, and the courageous work of thousands of men who climbed up on those structures and actually built that thing. Did it "happen by itself?" Well, just depends on how you look at it....

3) Another thought -- added later as I edit this -- would be to include the USA ("United States of America") as one of the intentional construction projects of global civilization. The motto of the USA is "E Pluribus Unum" -- "Out of Many, One". The USA is a formal coalescence of diverse independent "states", that came together through an arduous process of negotiation, to synthesize the US Constitution and build a nation on that basis. That was a big deal. I like the way EJ Dionne described the process in his 2012 book "Our Divided Political Heart", where he describes the USA, in a paraphrase of the Pledge of Allegiance, as "One nation conceived in argument".

That's actually how it is/was. It took a tremendous consciously informed and balanced process of "networking" and negotiation and argument/debate to conceive and align and establish the United States. It didn't happen "by itself". It happened because brilliant far-seeing dedicated men, with wide-ranging perspectives, came together, and for two years hammered out the vision of a new kind of government, based on everything anybody had learned up to that point in history. This was a brilliant and amazing -- and absolutely "on purpose and intentional" activity. This didn't happen because these guys were sitting in their rocking chairs waiting for God to act and the magic Deus Ex Machina to drop in out of the sky to fuse together a nation. It happened because visionary men with passionate hearts stood together, hammered out a deal through blood and sweat, and made it work.

ANDREA: The 'global network' is the internet.

BRUCE: The internet itself did not happen by magic, or by itself. It happened because visionary people conceived it, saw the potential, designed the technical solutions, came up with the funding, built the actual infrastructure, helped convene a huge economic boom around it, got fiber optic cable laid all over the world, built the wireless architecture, designed and built and marketed the computers, developed the hand-held industry, etc.

ANDREA: It seems to me that people who are motivated to bring greater peace, unity, freedom, equality, information, environmental balance, etc. to the world will reach out on their own and find each other like we did.

BRUCE: Ok, that's a nice thought, and to some degree that is happening. But look around. How many Facebook groups are there on "climate change" or "global warming"? There are many. Are they working together? Do they have a common agenda? Do they have significant political influence? Are political groups working together today? There are thousands of issues we are facing today. They are hugely complex, there are no simple solutions, and "motivated activists" do not propose the same solutions. To the contrary, they are fighting among themselves. Why does "the one percent rule the world?" The short answer is -- "because the 99% are fighting among themselves about everything". There is no unity in activist movements, and every sub-issue that comes up -- and there are zillions of them -- is grounds for another fight. Politics in the USA is frozen today, for this reason. And this frozen gridlock is very dangerous when we got critical and explosive issues all around us, any of which could take us down.

Andrea, the truth is, we are not working together well, and standing around waiting for magic teamwork to save us is not the best plan. If magic teamwork emerges -- it will be because some people figured out how to handle this huge problem of non-harmonious diversity, and came up with a way to convene resonance in a natural and organic way. Maybe to outside observers, it will appear that this fabulous and super-complex harmonic teamwork appeared by magic. But the reality will be -- that designers figured out the concept of cooperation in a highly diverse context, and saw ways to invoke and convene it and make it actually happen -- and then settled down and actually did it.

ANDREA: Having a group like interspirit.net, among many others (internet based or not), certainly helps us network, but is there really a need to make this 'massive-scale' network to help motivate people who are already motivated, or worse, those not even looking for it? And isn't that network facilitated through the internet and other organizations formed (and forming) anyway?

BRUCE: I don't think "it is forming anyway". I've been watching organizations try to come together for a long time. Cooperation/collaboration is not a new idea. I've worked with many different groups. But it turns out that cooperation is harder than it looks. Everybody has their own way of doing things, and a big investment in that way. We need something pretty organic and fine-grained to help move us all past this big simple "clash of the cultures" that threatens international civilization with a train wreck. That's one reason I like the Teilhard quotes so much. He affirms a classical metaphyics that points to common ground in a very strong way. And if you don't believe him -- the tag-based affinity process can build resonance from the bottom up.

ANDREA: The people who don't seek such networks don't want to be a part of them, at least not right now.

BRUCE: And to some degree, Andrea, this is because they think that a passive "magic will fix it" approach is all they need. Actually -- I run into far more people who take the "all will be changed in a twinkling of an eye" vision than who understand the hard technical grunt work that somebody has to do to make all these things work right. This is just part of the demographic situation today. The people who get "oneness" most often think that "Kumbaya is all we need". But I've sat in circles with those people -- and when an issue comes up where the group is divided -- Kumbaya goes out the window and the catfight starts. Kumbaya by itself doesn't work.

ANDREA: I believe that it is going to be a change of perspective in the heart and mind of the masses that will naturally build this massive global network that Bruce and others so fervently seek. I don't think that we can artificially create it, no matter how much all of us desperately want global peace, progress, and equality.

BRUCE: I do agree, Andrea, that a "massive change of perspective in heart and mind" is a big part of what we are talking about. But it's not a "twinkling of an eye" kind of thing. Karma is real. People have huge cultural and psychological investments in highly incommensurate world views -- incommensurate meaning that they don't work together -- they clash -- it's "apples and oranges". Which means, in the real world: war.

ANDREA: The war outside won't end until people start looking within for answers to their inner turmoil, and no one can make them do that, not us, not anyone. 'You could lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.'

BRUCE: This is so, true, Andrea, and I have said the same thing many times. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink". I've consoled myself on many occasions with that simple and very true concept.

But this project -- is not going to emerge from a direct contact with "the masses". That's why it's proposed as a "leadership network". We got to start with people who mostly do "get it" -- and find them, and help bring them into collaborative resonance. Then, as the sphere of influence expands, people who are influenced by those leaders and leadership groups will start to "believe" -- they will start to see, their leaders will encourage them. In a context of high doubt and global skepticism -- people will start to say -- "hey, there IS some light here, wow, let's get into this, it's beautiful...."

ANDREA: The masses are still too concerned with survival and other needs for themselves and their families to really branch out to the level of global caring-and-sharing in ways that go beyond the occasional donation, empathy, going-green, etc.

BRUCE: Yes, you are so right. So, we gotta grow this thing carefully, not in a blunt-force confrontational kind of a way, but in a gradual resonance-expanding kind of way that starts with the brightest lights and gradually grows from there...

ANDREA: The fact that the 'almighty dollar' and corporate domination hasn't loosed its grip doesn't help the activists who are forced to spend the majority of their time and energy earning money to survive, including myself.

BRUCE: Yes, that's a problem. That's one big reason we can't waste precious energy quarreling about little things -- which we do. And we're not going to get past that problem, Andrea -- without a highly enlightened strategy. One of the big issues is -- the nature of "duality" itself. Every concept in the world is a potential battleground (see Ken Wilber's "No Boundary", Chapter 2). This is a big idea that almost nobody gets, even the smartest and most sophisticated. It's going to take a while to get clear on things like this...

ANDREA: All we can do is make ourselves available to those seeking what we seek, providing the knowledge and expertise we can in whatever fashion we choose to work within.

BRUCE: Yes, ok, but we got to come into resonance with people with whom we share "homophily" -- but not get hung up on the "you say tomAHto, I say toMAYto" problem-- which can take the human race to the point of ruin if we don't move past it in a conscious well-articulated way.

ANDREA: I know this all may come across as rather negative, but it is my humble opinion that humanity has not reached a point where a 'massive global network' of do-gooders is possible. When it is possible, I think it will form organically. We are witnessing the seed-stage of it forming.

BRUCE: I understand. But maybe -- think of it as a leadership process that we grow like a vine, not an "everybody gets it all at the same time" kind of thing. Human karma is massive and real. But a gradual approach, led by points of light gradually finding each other and building hot linkage -- that's a design that can grow, as it magnetizes "the masses" in a gradually inspiring way towards new possibilities of collaborative brilliance.

Thanks for the comments, Andrea, you made a lot of good points.

Here's a screenshot from a website I found today

https://www.unityworks.org/

*********************

Thankz Bruce .. this is s'well news as i articulate it .. I just focussed this "We need a sophisticated new global semantics that recognizes “diversity in word meanings” as well as in cultural assumptions and values."

Sympli change words as well in welll .. it means so much to reroute from ll to lll / inTRInseq

That is, also prevent from "sic" words ..

For now Only 2 semanticks - oops lll

--- On Fri, Sep 5, 2014, Bruce Schuman wrote ---

Dr. Paul Raskin is the president of the Tellus Institute and founder of The Great Transition Initiative.

http://www.greattransition.org/

I am part of a conversation sponsored by his group, and this morning, they opened another discussion, inviting response to his keynote address at a recent conference on "Ecological Economics".

http://www.greattransition.org/publication/a-great-transition-where-we-stand

I wrote a comment back to his network, and I thought I would include it here.

*****************

LEADERSHIP AFFINITY NETWORK

In the "Change Agents" section of his keynote address, Paul Raskin offers a powerful and succinct review of the possibilities for dynamic action in an era of critical global change.

In this paragraph, he summarizes the vision closest to my own heart, outlining primary values and a large-scale architecture of collaboration:

In one narrative, it would begin to coalesce as a network of networks, attracting adherents through local, national, and global nodes. It would connect the full spectrum of issues within an integrated strategic and intellectual framework. It would seek to bridge divisions of culture, class, and place, honoring diversity and pluralism within an umbrella of common principles and goals. It would practice a "politics of trust" that tolerates proximate differences in order to sustain the ultimate basis for unity. Such a movement would be a fitting answer to the poignant question heard from concerned citizens everywhere: "What can I do?" This statement summarizes a grand vision that seems grounded in something primal and universal, some “knowing” and instinctual design that many people see as archetypal. Globalism, universalism, holism, “oneness”, community – these themes seem to contain the seeds for this emerging global vision. Millions of people around the world can feel this, and organizations and agencies everywhere are guided by these ideals. But how to realize this collaboration, this teamwork? What can be our effective collective action path to bring such a grand thing into the world? Who is to define these “common principles and goals”?

This is a tough question, that has thus far tended to elude simple idealistic solutions, and in this context, increasing global pressures are continuing to drive the creative thinking of pioneers all over the world.

Paul Raskin continues:

Bringing it to life at the requisite speed and scale will not be easy. The challenge is extraordinary, but so are the times. In transformative moments, small actions can have large consequences. The efforts of an active minority can ripple through the cultural field and release latent potential for social change. But we need a coherent planetary praxis that, at once, advances relevant knowledge, presses for strong policy, and articulates rigorous and inspiring visions of another world. All this is necessary, but not sufficient. The additional task of building the global movement now beckons all of us who care about the quality of the future.

In this comment on Raskin’s compelling vision, I want to offer a very brief summary of one possible “collective praxis” that might help defuse the great conundrum of “what to do.”

In very simple terms, something like this idea seems to be appearing on the scene, arising here and there in various inspired locales, as a practical activist design for collective forward movement. This approach takes a form that engages the specialized expertise of committed activists anywhere, without attempting to form some single “constitutional” approach based on a few grand and glowing principles that all are expected to accept. What we need, instead, suggests this emerging new approach – is a kind of “coalescence” process, that meets individuals and organizations where they live, speaks to them in their own language, and builds 1,000 bridges from independent locations and agencies to one soft and almost undefined common center.

This approach creates a center that can emerge by statistical correlation alone as the common ground of an absolutely inclusive global movement. This method demands no allegiance to one overarching grand design stated in the words of some particular language by some inspired architect, but instead is capable of building a grand unity based on something like “resonant statistical correlation” drawn together from literally thousands of independent but overlapping factors that represent the passions and expertise and commitment of motivated but “highly diverse” activists.

RESONANT ENGAGEMENT

What we need is some way to engage the vast diversity of motivated experts, each in their own terms, on their own basis, building a pathway of inclusion that honors their particular perspective, their passion, their motivation. We have all seen hundreds of graphic metaphors across the internet for something like this process – the world coming together like a giant jig-saw puzzle, with each individual member of a conscientious global community bringing their piece of the puzzle.

We need a bridge-building process that recognizes this convergence and engages motivated activists, that recognizes their specialized expertise, and sees in what they are doing some “critical piece of the puzzle”. We need to support the interconnections of this process in a soft “resonant” way, that does not stumble into the bottomless pit of debating alternative word meanings. We need a sophisticated new global semantics that recognizes “diversity in word meanings” as well as in cultural assumptions and values. We need to empower the concept of “homophily” – “love of the same” -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophilye, and not to those who don't.

Feel free to disagree with me, but in my humble opinion, humanity at large is not at the point to develop a massive global network of do-gooders using their talents and passions to benefit the whole of humanity. The majority of people are still concerned with their own (and their families) survival and other needs. They are not concerned with global health enough to become activists. Even if they were, the majority of people still have to spend the vast majority of time chasing after money to live in any relative comfort and security.

The system is still based on 'whoever has the most money wins' and whoever doesnt have enough money loses, and it will be that way as long as the almighty-dollar runs the show and forcibly dictates lives.

I know I may be sounding rather negative, but I personally beleive that a massive global network outside of the internet and the linking together of like-minded communities of people (could be quite large and span across many countries etc., but not massive or global), is unrealistic at this time.

--- On Fri, Sep 5, 2014, Bruce Schuman wrote ---

Dr. Paul Raskin is the president of the Tellus Institute and founder of The Great Transition Initiative.

http://www.greattransition.org/

I am part of a conversation sponsored by his group, and this morning, they opened another discussion, inviting response to his keynote address at a recent conference on "Ecological Economics".

http://www.greattransition.org/publication/a-great-transition-where-we-stand

I wrote a comment back to his network, and I thought I would include it here.

*****************

LEADERSHIP AFFINITY NETWORK

In the "Change Agents" section of his keynote address, Paul Raskin offers a powerful and succinct review of the possibilities for dynamic action in an era of critical global change.

In this paragraph, he summarizes the vision closest to my own heart, outlining primary values and a large-scale architecture of collaboration:

In one narrative, it would begin to coalesce as a network of networks, attracting adherents through local, national, and global nodes. It would connect the full spectrum of issues within an integrated strategic and intellectual framework. It would seek to bridge divisions of culture, class, and place, honoring diversity and pluralism within an umbrella of common principles and goals. It would practice a "politics of trust" that tolerates proximate differences in order to sustain the ultimate basis for unity. Such a movement would be a fitting answer to the poignant question heard from concerned citizens everywhere: "What can I do?"

This statement summarizes a grand vision that seems grounded in something primal and universal, some “knowing” and instinctual design that many people see as archetypal. Globalism, universalism, holism, “oneness”, community – these themes seem to contain the seeds for this emerging global vision. Millions of people around the world can feel this, and organizations and agencies everywhere are guided by these ideals. But how to realize this collaboration, this teamwork? What can be our effective collective action path to bring such a grand thing into the world? Who is to define these “common principles and goals”?

This is a tough question, that has thus far tended to elude simple idealistic solutions, and in this context, increasing global pressures are continuing to drive the creative thinking of pioneers all over the world.

Paul Raskin continues:

Bringing it to life at the requisite speed and scale will not be easy. The challenge is extraordinary, but so are the times. In transformative moments, small actions can have large consequences. The efforts of an active minority can ripple through the cultural field and release latent potential for social change.

But we need a coherent planetary praxis that, at once, advances relevant knowledge, presses for strong policy, and articulates rigorous and inspiring visions of another world. All this is necessary, but not sufficient. The additional task of building the global movement now beckons all of us who care about the quality of the future.

In this comment on Raskin’s compelling vision, I want to offer a very brief summary of one possible “collective praxis” that might help defuse the great conundrum of “what to do.”

In very simple terms, something like this idea seems to be appearing on the scene, arising here and there in various inspired locales, as a practical activist design for collective forward movement. This approach takes a form that engages the specialized expertise of committed activists anywhere, without attempting to form some single “constitutional” approach based on a few grand and glowing principles that all are expected to accept. What we need, instead, suggests this emerging new approach – is a kind of “coalescence” process, that meets individuals and organizations where they live, speaks to them in their own language, and builds 1,000 bridges from independent locations and agencies to one soft and almost undefined common center.

This approach creates a center that can emerge by statistical correlation alone as the common ground of an absolutely inclusive global movement. This method demands no allegiance to one overarching grand design stated in the words of some particular language by some inspired architect, but instead is capable of building a grand unity based on something like “resonant statistical correlation” drawn together from literally thousands of independent but overlapping factors that represent the passions and expertise and commitment of motivated but “highly diverse” activists.

RESONANT ENGAGEMENT

What we need is some way to engage the vast diversity of motivated experts, each in their own terms, on their own basis, building a pathway of inclusion that honors their particular perspective, their passion, their motivation. We have all seen hundreds of graphic metaphors across the internet for something like this process – the world coming together like a giant jig-saw puzzle, with each individual member of a conscientious global community bringing their piece of the puzzle.

We need a bridge-building process that recognizes this convergence and engages motivated activists, that recognizes their specialized expertise, and sees in what they are doing some “critical piece of the puzzle”. We need to support the interconnections of this process in a soft “resonant” way, that does not stumble into the bottomless pit of debating alternative word meanings. We need a sophisticated new global semantics that recognizes “diversity in word meanings” as well as in cultural assumptions and values. We need to empower the concept of “homophily” – “love of the same” -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophily

Through our “Network Nation” project, we are beginning to explore the development of this kind of integrating network. Everyone brings their piece – or their many pieces – and their motivation forms a huge “tag cloud” written in the language and terms of the participants – and is then correlated by their engagement.

This is diversity in action. This is collective listening in action. This is engagement from the local point converging from everywhere to the global.

And all of this is amenable to clear-cut computer-based solutions. This link begins to illustrate how:

http://networknation.net/pattern.cfm?searchterm=transition&whl=11&lv1=101154&lv2=101963&lv3=101964&lv4=103137&lv5=0&lv6=0&lv7=0#go

We need a global listening process – that can assimilate the individualized and localized input of individuals all over the world, meeting them on their own terms, honoring their passions, and correlating them not through hard agreement on specific statements, but on soft correlations of thousands (or millions) of tags defined in local terms.

The architecture could look like this: