we_need_to_organize They call me Truth I don't know...maybe this is just me, but I feel like there are too many blockages and labels that separate us as people, and we are too busy arguing about them and trying to prove our point while issues remain just issues with no solutions. We have the internet. We are able to send information all over the globe. There are millions of organizations that stand for peace, and that fight for a particular cause. But the causes in which we fight for still are used to separate us. Some people fight for the issue of health care while other people fight against poverty, while others fight against war. Wouldn't it be useful if an interconnected relationship was formed...a United Nations for Peace and Happiness, where organizations with different causes can organize into one cohesive whole? Of course there will be difficulties, but wouldn't the pay off be beautiful? There are people who organize and come together to achieve the most profit possible. Wouldn't it be amazing if we came together to profit humanity. Most of us want to be happy, and most of us want peace, and most of us want to be comfortable and not struggling for food and shelter and a way of life. Why can't we unite on those grounds. Instead of focusing on our differences, we can focus on our similarities. We could use the intelligences and new knowledge and capability that would come from uniting. We would have the power to do anything we choose. How can this start? 080324 ... stork daddy i'm all for a blather ngo. 080324 ... They call me Truth what's an NGO??? it would be really cool if everyone who is interested on blather can come together...i think it would be awesome to come together and discuss ideas about ways to bring everyone together. 080324 ... stork daddy non-governmental organization. 080324 ... They Call Me Truth Oh....lol...sounds awesome 080324 ... z it sounds like you are proposing the humanist parts of most religions or spiritual traditions. simple humanism. the problems seem to come from the awareness that we all labor under of the very differences you so blithely discard in the above. some of us require special hats/clothes/ shoes, others require that we group in a certain way, or eat special things, or avoid eating others, or not work on certain days, or that genders are treated differently, or that anyone who doesn't say certain words is bad, or that we must cut our hair or beards, or that we must not cut our hair or beards, or that some work is unclean and only others can do it, or that some few of us are the chosen and the rest are inferior, or that special behavior will allow us to survive death, or that sex is wrong, or that sex is right, or that music and dance are wrong, or that music and dance are the only ways to understand mysteries. and we all proceed with the certainty that some of these principles are inviolable, universally. the problem is that they do not completely overlap. they are not, in fact, universal. and that is why there is no master-creed, nor global organization devoted to absolute humanism. when people have attempted to create them, they have frequently been martyred, often, indirectly, causing the opposite of what they seem to have set out to achieve. your idea is beautiful in theory, but impractical in practice. but i hope i am wrong. i am listening if you have suggestions. 080324 ... z there are two kinds of people in the world, those who think there are two kinds of people, and those who know better. 080324 ... They call me Truth Z, thanks for your response. I agree with you on many of your points. I agree that people have many distinctions that create differences and separate us. I go to a private Catholic College. I am not sure why but this particular college made it their business to bring in people from every continent. There are people here from Europe, Asia, South America, Africa, Australia, North America (I haven't met anyone from Antarctica). I have had a very great privilege to meet and befriend many of these people from different places. We spend a lot of time talking about the differences between us, but i have found that many of them have come to the same conclusions that i have, and many of them have the same desires that i have. I do believe we all are very different, but i know that this current generation has been regarded as the most tolerant. I do not think that we have to give up our differences. That's not necessary. We are perfectly capable of being tolerant. And I believe, through my current experience, that there are people everywhere that are capable of that tolerance. We may have different beliefs but we also can unite towards a single goal and agree to be tolerant of our differences and only focus on what we collectively want: peace, an end to poverty, an end to oppression. If we could put our differences aside (i have made good friends with many people despite of our cultural differences) and unite towards a cause then i do think it is possible. It may be a crazy notion and it may be impractical, but i can go and look right now on the net and find hundreds of groups and organizations that were created to spread peace and freedom. If we say we really want these things, i think we could put our differences aside to increase the chances of acquiring them. I'm not asking that everyone unite. Even a sixth of the population would be enough. 1 billion people united under one goal would be efficient to make great steps toward that goal. There are three types of people in the world: defeatists, realists, and idealists. Defeatists don't dare to hope for better things; they have already given up on humanity, seeing only the world's limitations and flaws. Realists are practical people who see the world as it is; they try to improve things through practical means. Idealist see the world for what it could be, and even though their dreams are grandiose, silly, ridiculous, impractical, or crazy...they dare to dream it. It is my humble opinion, that the Greats, the people whose presence made the greatest steps towards the growth of society, were idealists. 080325 ... They call me Truth I discussed the ideas you shared with me Z with other people, and your arguments are sound, and it got me thinking of modifications to my idea that would work better. Instead of one huge organization, i envisioned an interconnected web of organizations, all of which are in existence or will be in the future, where, there is communication and cooperation among the many hubs. This partnership would create a multi-organization that interacts with each other, and talks about the many different ways in which they see general terms such as peace, and their many methods in achieving it. What i think this would do, is create an environment where people who share similar beliefs can come together more easily and everyone will have power to influence ideas and rethink these general terms. If a cause is decided, lets say, various hubs within the network decide to come together to combat hunger; people that think that it should be done through governmental changes can come together in that regard, and people who think it should be done by donations can come together in that regard, and people who think programs should be establish could come together in that regard, and so on, and these regards will overlap sometimes and of course break down into smaller groups. But lets do the math. Suppose we get 1,000,000 worldwide that are a part of this fight against hunger. -----take note that this particular group is only one subgroup in the multi-organizational web; this group in fact may be a part of a larger group, lets say, the poverty group and the poverty group is a part of an even larger group, lets say, Equal distribution of resources group. This would mean that the hunger group is already a sub group, but it is a sub group that is part of the whole interconnected web. The equal distribution of resources group is also just a fraction of the entire web. another fraction would be the peace group. These would be known as general-head groups. All these various head groups and sub groups and sub sub groups would overlap and a person can decide where they want to put their particular time and effort------- but anyways, we have 1,000,000 people. Those people, according to what i said earlier would be split into three groups: goverment changes, programs, and donations. Each group would have about 333,000 people. these would also split considerably... but all these splits would cooperate with one another and share things and they will overlap. But what this interconnection really does, is it allows various organizations from all over the world, free discussion of many of these ideas, and paves the way for the discussion of common ground... No one is the same i agree, but movements in the past were created by people who were very different. I believe it is an interesting experiment. 080331 ... z i think it may exist. are you reinventing the UN? 080331 ... They Call Me Truth No, i dont think so...it is for common people. The UN is government. And the United Nations is a lot more limited than what I am thinking about...and there isnt any heirarchy involved in this, all groups are equal, none is higher than any other... And it is my opinion that many of the nations of the United Nations are corrupt and do not have the best interest of the poor, or bringing about freedom and equality for everyone. 080331 ... blather spell checkin hierarchy 080331 ... They call me Truth thanx dude, i always get those mixed up 080403 ... epitome of incomprehensibility Hmmm... avaaz.org is an international online group that raises funds & makes petitions for justice issues etc. Right now, they're working on human rights in Tibet. Of course, the issue there isn't completely cut-and-dried. Though the Chinese have a bad record on Tibet, some Tibetan protests grew violent and a few people were killed. That doesn't mean that people should stop trying to free the country from opression... It's also difficult when you sympathize with someone's goals but think they're communicating the wrong way. Example: the groups who protest Israel's occupation of Palestine by calling it "apartheid". I question the use of that word--it makes anyone who disagrees with them sound racist. But then, I don't have anything invested on either side, so how can I judge? I hope my train of thought makes at least marginal sense. The point I might be getting at is that it's useful to look for organizations that are already there. And that people disagree. But there's hope. Of course, there are also a lot of other things as well. 080403 ... epitome bemoans spelling 'Opression'. Is that oppression by Oprah or something? Oh dear oh dear. 080403 ... margaux anyways, i really don't want to organize. 080403 ... margaux and i don't appreciate being told what "we" all need to do. 080403 ... They call me Truth The "we" are the people who want to organize toward the betterment of humanity. This "we" are people who are already a part of organizations for peace and who wouldn't mind combining efforts. If you do not wish to organize then this "we" does not include you. I am arguing for freedom and i would never dream of making someone do something they don't want to do. 080404 ... () (no enforced freedom) 080404 ... jane if people are already part of organizations, then aren't they already organized 080405 ... amy we always need to organize. we need to hold elections at least every other month. either that, or you must find yourself a chaotic attractors every time you 'round the corner. seriously, though, if you place yourself in the light/Truth it will always look like there are a million improvments to be made. I'm not sayin' it's right or wrong, I'm just sayin' that it might be the effects of your perceptions sometimes. the U.N., NGOs etc. do exist. 080405 ... z what is light/truth? 080406 ... amy oh, you know, that stuff that makes you feel certain. i'm actually trying to be a little less full of light and truth too. truth is definitely good, but not 24/7. i start to desperately hunt out my dark side. oh, and i regretted my previous remarks, if you find a group of people who want to organize there's no reason why you shouldn't, right? although, if you want world peace, i think the best bet is to join a prayer circle or do some sort of art. 080406 ... z the scientific method is the only thing that approaches certainty for me. everything else, for me, is tantamount to wishing. 080406 ... They call me Truth Let me explain what I am saying simply. The more people you have cooperating the further your hand can reach, the greater you can pull resources and talents from various places towards a goal. What I am suggesting is this kind of collaboration on a grand scale. Organizations organizing. Global Organization of individuals, small organizations, and large organizations. Remember, this is just a suggestion. I welcome any discussion of the ideas here...but if you do not think that we need to organize it is your freedom not to think so. But, I believe that many people do feel that need. And I think if all those people combine efforts on a world wide scale, I think it will be more than efficient to get the job we want done: the betterment of all people, a more equal distribution of resources, equality, peace, respect, love, abundance. It is clear if you look at the world that we have so much inequality. A small percentage of people owning the majority of wealth in the world. I think we need to organize. 080406 ... They call me Truth And I will say this again. This is for people that see a need to organize. This is in no way, shape, or form, including everyone, everywhere. You are free to agree or disagree. There are a lot of organizations who believe that there is a need, a lot of people who see suffering of other human beings. I am saying that these people should collaborate if they want more to be done about it. Nothing has to be certain either. But if one cares about the things that he sees in the world and one believes that something can be done to improve life for all human beings, then it is at least a cause worth experimenting with. 080406 ... channeling PRINCIPIA DISCORDIA organizations organizing... like to form one BIG organization? kind of like corporations are doing RIGHT NOW? the European Union, next the African Union, the Asian Union? the AMERICAN UNION? and soon all the Unions organize to form a SUPER union. and then you have what every science fiction writer ever wrote, about Global Domination and Manifest Destiny, and soon we're living on the moon drinking Tang and wondering what other things we can monopolize, and soon you don't need wombs to give birth, because they can make babies in Petrie Dishes! I say DISORGANIZE! TOTAL CHAOS and Discordianism! Run about wildly! Be Free! Yell out the names of our ancestors! throw paint on the buildings and streets! BREAK DOWN the Walls in which we are enslaved!!!! Organization is the ENEMY! Be in the pursuits of freedom, and rights, and beauty, and everything else that makes you laugh, cry, vomit, go wild, have an orgasm, or AFFECTS YOU in some way. Never forget these things, because these are what life is truly about. DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT. GO LIVE!! 080407 ... On the Same Track What's so wrong with suffering? If we do not suffer, we do not experience, we do not grow, and learn. Is is better to be numb, and muted, and feel nothing? Wouldn't you rather feel the ups and downs of life, then wonder what you would be feeling were you not all numbed out? Life is a cycle, of creation and destruction - you can't have one without the other. Human suffering exists for a reason, and declaring a war on it is just as futile as declaring a war on Terror - because it will always be there, and anyone who tells you differently is selling something. 080407 ... They call me Truth I realize that you personally see organization as an enemy and that is okay. It is my opinion that it is not always an enemy, especially when it is toward a goal that benefits all people. I do not think all human suffering is bad. I am not proposing organizing to prevent heartbreak in relationship, or conflicts in family. What I am proposing is organizing so that everyone has enough food to eat, so that people don't have to feel unsafe when they leave their house because they have been at war for 20 years. I am proposing organizing so that everyone has a home and wealth is evenly distributed. I am proposing organizing so that people don't have to spend the rest of their lives struggling to get out of debt, to feed their children, to stay alive, so that they can do more LIVING. When black people were being lynched by the hundreds and even thousands and being discriminated against (this is still present today) it could have been easy to accept it as the way things should be. But people questioned that ASSUMPTION and people fought for the liberation and the equality they wanted and it was given to them. There are still slaves, but many nations have grown to object to slavery. Many did not dream that that would be possible. The question is, what do we think is not possible today? Do we think that it is impossible for society to live without war (there is a difference between war and conflict)? DO we think it is impossible for everyone to have food, to have a home and shelter and the promise of a reasonably comfortable life? WHy is this when 1 percent of the world possesses most of the wealth. Do we think it is impossible that that wealth be shared or that it should be? What do we believe is impossible? I am proposing that people organize so that they have more time to live their lives, and don't have to worry about how they will be able to pay for a hospital bill, or feed their children. I guarantee that people will feel more free, if they don't have to worry about all the things they have to do to stay alive in this world that is so uneven in its treatment of human beings. 080407 ... JEESUS and what happened to ADAPTATION? if a society cannot survive, don't you think it is nature's INTENTION for it to vanish? I don't think its right for us to play god by "helping" other nations. Isn't that what we're supposed to be doing in IRAQ, helping? but really doesn't that mean killing the natives. honestly i don't believe you can get anything done, because everyone wants to watch television and hear about Tom Cruise or whatever. Nobody wants to hear about African children, and if they do, they say, oh how sad is that, and then change the channel. All you can do in this life (and it has been proven repeatedly) is turn off your television and create ART. Because ART is what is going to save the world. NOT CAPITALISM, COMMUNISM, NATIONAL SOCIALISM, RELIGION, or GREENPEACE. we have had the technology for years, don't you think there is a REASON it hasn't already been used? because there are forces at work here that you don't even understand. they are the people that are in power, behind the "people in power." They have made sure that there is no way you can rise up against them, by slowly taking away your privacy, and your rights. I admire your naive idealistic views, but I know it is IMPOSSIBLE to do what you think is so simple. don't you think it would have been done already? perhaps you see yourself as some sort of PROPHET that is here to lead us to salvation. well the last person that tried to do that got fucking crucified. NO ONE WANTS TO BE SAVED. 080407 ... z what you seem to be saying is that we need socialism. the redistribution of wealth is not an easy thing. just ask most cuban expatriots in miami. merit is a basic principle of capitalism. unfortunately, so is the phenomenon of the concentration of wealth. but arbitrary redistribution is not an effective cure for that malady. in order for capitalism to work incentive must exist, or else people wont produce. doing nothing needs to be uncomfortable. but balance is also needed. clearly, without intervention, some will always hack any system, creating advantage, and profit. i think what i am missing in your calls for collaboration is a clear idea of your specific goals, methods, principles and the rights of your cohort. without such a charter you are, essentially, asking people to join a group that is good because you say that it is. it may well be a good idea, but without guiding principles, it is a leap off a cliff. 080407 ... They call me Truth Hmmm...Wow, I didn't expect a response like that to what I was suggesting. First of all, I wasn't suggesting to be anyone's messiah. I found it interesting that if someone thinks that mankind should come together, you would assume that that person wants to be Jesus. Second of all, I am not suggesting socialism. It is also interesting that if someone suggests "equal distribution of resources" that it is linked to socialism. I realized that these are the labels people use. Left, Right, Capitalistic, Socialistic. But i am not particularly fond of labels. And these are not the only two possibilites for how humanity can exist. There is no such thing as either or. And this aplies to capitalism and socialism. I am leaving it open for a specific reason. The reason that I am keeping it open is so that ideas can be freely shared and a model can be made after these collaborations have discussed what there plans will be and how they will go about there plans. it will be in discussion form first, where people will discuss ideas. we will then use these ideas and try to incorporate aspects of these ideas to form practical means to get things accomplish. There is no need to have a specific way of doing things, in fact there can be many, and people can choose to participate in these ways based on whether they believe in the idea being put forward. But no particular idea (and this pertains to the entire collaboration) will be put forward by the whole unless the majority agrees to it. Also, No one is being forced to be a part of any idea, and anyone can choose to go off individually on there own. The partnerships are based on loose cooperation, and collaboration, not on forced compliance. All I am suggesting here is a method of organizing people. The specifics will be left to when the people have organized. That is partly why i put this on blather. To hear suggestions on how this could be brought about. I was suggesting that people would organize on a common goal, and then they would discuss these ideals and talk about methods that can be done to bring about whatever goal they desire. Because it is loosely bonded there is room for anyone to object and not be a part of anything they don't choose to be a part of. Some groups can collaborate on a certain method while other groups can avoid it completely. Even individuals have the right to choose which method they will participate in. Because all these organizations have agreed to cooperate and merge ideas and manpower, there will be more people to move around, and more ideas being spread and circulated among the many hubs, in the interconnected multi-organization. This way, many ideas will be brought to the table, suggesting ways that people can organize and bring about certain goals. In response to this elite that you speak of that prevents people from coming together. I do not think this is entirely true. Just like we are humans, this elite is run by human beings. They may have money and resources, but they may not have numbers. Combined intelligences is a very powerful ally. This "elite" you speak of is not inpenetrable and they cannot survive without the cooperation of the "common" people. The common people are the majority. They get their money and power from us. So why do you believe that this group has the power to organize and we do not? Why do you believe that we can't organize but they can. Aren't they human like us? Is it because they have money? What is your reason for assuming the impossiblity of organizing people while acknowledging the organization of people you call the "elite." Everything has a beginning. Something doesn't happen until it happens. Rendering something impossible because it has not happened yet is flawed logic (not trying to pick at you or anything). Splitting an atom wasn't possible until someone did it. Indeed cloning wasn't thought to be possible until someone did it. Equal rights for all races and genders (somewhat) were not possible until someone fought for them and made it happen. There has indeed been many things in the past that were thought to be impossible until it happened. We are all people of our time. If you could go back and ask a slave owner if a black man could be a millionaire, and he most likely would laugh at you. He is a person of his time. We believe things are impossible because we are limited by the reality of the present. We also believe things are impossible because we have been indoctrinated into thinking so. There may be things that are impossible, but who really knows what is. I think it is worth trying just to see if it can happen. Things don't always succeed the first time they are tried, and I do not think that collaboration is going to make everyone's lives perfect. But i do believe it will make improvements. If there is any possibility of improvement i believe it is worth the effort. Once again...I am surprized by people's resistence to this idea, but maybe I shouldn't be... 080407 ... They call me Truth (I always appreciate your contributions to my blathes Z, i learn things from you and you open my mind to new things) And one more thing for you to think about Jeesus. I think the one thing that the "elite" would love the most, is for people to believe that they CANT organize and do anything. You should think about how much power this elite could have on your thoughts. The strongest way to control a people is to have them believe they are powerless. 080407 ... daf Do we honor the vision of freedom that our Founding Fathers put forth by blindly following the dictates of a system they put in place but did not foresee the abuse of? If their mechanism is flawed and we now know it, don't we owe it to them, as their fellow Americans, and beneficiaries..to set the wheels of our people aligned and the course of their consciences straight? Don't we owe it to future generations and to that initial dream of preserving liberty which we call "American"? When has an American, a true American at heart, trodden on another's freedom with glee? Although our human rights record is not spotless, and the very founding construction of this nation was borne on the backs of slaves, still the ideal that we consider in our hearts "American" found its way even through this inconstancy, and has ever since struggled, but limped along toward redemption..and honesty with herself. Then this: the farce which we call a political process. There is no process anymore. There are two camps that have two different philosophies for spending obscene quantities of our money on crap ideas or pocket-lining arrangements. What no one seems to realize, admit or care about is that every 4 - 7 dollars = 1 hour of an American's life. If just $1,000,000 is wasted, 23 years of some American's life was just tossed to the winds. For what? To indulge some, disconnected, power-brokering parasites who make their living by overspending and through pompous avoidance of consequences? I'm sorry, but that qualifies us as either clinically insane or genocidal. I'm not doing this anymore. I'm an American, and this is not the American way. From now on, I'm only complying if it's sensible or necessary to do so. In all other conditions I am obligated by birth to choose freedom over compliance. I'm obligated to choose bravery over acquiesence and I choose my obligation over my society's ridiculous notion of what constitutes freedom. I am obligated to embrace discomfort rather than relinquish freedoms. I value no life more than freedom..but value all lives enough to see them free, and would die for their right to be so. What value is there in this circular way of living? If all of our inspirations and pondering inevitably leads us to either blind, delusional contentment or incurable disillusion..why seek after inspiration at all in a society whose mad circuits lead nowhere nor improve our spirit one whit? I do not see the value in comfort as being superior to the value of freedom. Although my want for comfort is certainly not lacking, still..eventually there is no comfort in restriction. A poor, wretched freedom is far superior to a comfortable, convenient pen. Sheep have comfortable pens, and full bellies too. They are fleeced at regular intervals and without thought to their wishing to be so relieved; no thought at that moment to any sense of inconvenience caused by the randomness of it. When they grow old, they are discarded to make room for fresh new sheep who will produce more for the same space and with half of the craftiness. Sheep are comfortable..they are not free. Being an America is not about comfort..not convenience..nor security. So why do our public servants stick guns in our faces when they must force us to comply? Americans don't have our guns to control others. We have guns to keep others from controlling us. And we don't just give up our liberties to save our lives. If you don't value freedom more than life, then how can you be worthy of it? To those of you who say, "If you're dead you can't be free." I say..now we know who you are in this for. Not us..not the future. Not society, just you. Why should society care about your thoughts on the subject at that point? You don't care about her needs. Her cold restrictions, the snap of her tightly bound hair upon her back. You would just as soon see her die an ignanimous snuff film death; bound and gagged, wretched, degraded and humiliated. That is what your apathy has done to our beloved place of birth, and sorrily, I find you detestable for it. 080408 ... z http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahá%27í_Faith 080408 ... They call me Truth Baha'i is defined as: The independent search after truth, unfettered by superstition or tradition; the oneness of the entire human race, the pivotal principle and fundamental doctrine of the Faith; the basic unity of all religions; the condemnation of all forms of prejudice, whether religious, racial, class or national; the harmony which must exist between religion and science; the equality of men and women, the two wings on which the bird of humankind is able to soar; the introduction of compulsory education; the adoption of a universal auxiliary language; the abolition of the extremes of wealth and poverty; the institution of a world tribunal for the adjudication of disputes between nations; the exaltation of work, performed in the spirit of service, to the rank of worship; the glorification of justice as the ruling principle in human society, and of religion as a bulwark for the protection of all peoples and nations; and the establishment of a permanent and universal peace as the supreme goal of all mankind—these stand out as the essential elements [which Bahá'u'lláh proclaimed]. Though I do like their idea, I don't agree with everything they believe and so i wouldn't identify myself as one and i tend to avoid defining myself as a particular group as best I can, though my views are more on a liberal end. I am a person that cherishes an open mind, so i only commit to a certain few central beliefs that i use as a foundation. these beliefs are changed through time as well...I realize that i am constantly changing so i know that my current view is only my current perspective. I hope you aren't still trying to define me as something...though i believe i could fit many molds, i choose not to define myself, and i question everything...i could not belong to a particular group even if i tried. I will say this again, I believe that people should come together and express ideas, i guess you can call this unity, but i do not believe we need one government, or that we need to believe in religions. i do not think we need to reconcile everything. I believe we need to try to understand one another and not let differences separate us. I believe that this would be essential to our growth as a collective, because we are both individuals and a collective...our combined actions create a reality. This is just my current belief. You can continue to look for ways to define me (i never even knew that religion existed, did you? and if you did, i think you are amazing, if you didn't, i appreciate you taking me seriously enough to look it up)but you will find, as with every human being, no "ism" or faith or belief structure or method fits anyone completely. I am an individual but i am also human. I think that is the only thing we have completely in common. I am not suggesting that people adapt my ideas either...i am my own person and i would love if everyone respected the individual's right to choose. i just find it interesting that I keep getting "ism" and belief structures issued to me and I keep getting asked what my methods are. Is that only way we can think of a person, through labels??? Why do you assume that i have a method for these things? I think we can learn from eachother. That is the basis of my call to organize, and i have kept it that simple. You have to ask...why are we so focused on distinctions and differences? We are all different...we could all create an ism if we wanted to. But how are we the same...can common ground be found? And then, once common ground is found, can't we leave the decision on individual belief to the individuals. I think we believe that being an individual and being a collective consciousness are paradoxes that can't be reconciled. Why are we so sure of this? 080408 ... z i am not trying to define you. i am not advocating religiosity, or any other "ism". i am simply throwing ideas at the wall to try to see what sticks. your vision (which seems to be evolving as we speak) as described, is a bit vague. i think the underlying idea (if i have understood you) is laudable, but without a plan or at least a list of principles, it is just an general idea. i am not the joining kind. i do not self-identify in many ways, and constantly work to reject as many labels as i can. labels are useful short hand that allow us to respond to a set specific symbolic values instead of going through the process of reacting each time we are confronted with something or someone. but not doing that work can be disadvantageous too. if we react in predefined ways, we learn less. i belong to very few organizations because i don not enjoy "group think". committees often produce compromised conclusions that make for unsatisfactory results. 080409 ... They call me Truth My vision is evolving as we speak, partly because of your useful commentary. You have intelligent and helpful comments that help me to evolve my ideas. I am avoiding principles and keeping it general, like i said, for a reason. I think people are uncomfortable with the general, but the general is needed to reach the specific. I am not putting forward specifics because I want to leave specifics up for constant debate and revision. When people find an idea that sticks then it is up to them to go with it, those who agree...those who do not agree don't have to participate. All I am suggesting is that the LOOSE COllABORATION that i suggested continue to remain intact so that future questioning and reshaping of ideas can happen, so that methods and stragedies can change until something works. I am inviting people into having a world-wide discussion to discuss the very things you want me to discuss at the beginning not even knowing where the conversation will lead. I am not trying to start a rigid system. I am trying to start a network of intelligences, talking and counteracting with eachother, discussing issues, showing the pros and cons to every method and deciding as a whole or as hubs or as individuals what strategies they will take toward their goal. I think your problem with this will clear up when you understand my intentions, then you won't keep trying to shape something that I am not trying to shape. I am saying simply this (call it my mission statement if you will): If you want peace, distrubution of resources in such a way as to end poverty and lack, and freedom for all men to be individuals as well as members of a functioning free society, then we must not leave anything too sacred that it cannot be discussed in open debate, and examined carefully (this includes the current establishments). In order to do this, I believe that those who want peace and freedom and wellness for everyone must begin a worldwide conversation, and interact with eachother openly, share ideas, and share support of ideas that they find to be good. I believe that we should create an interconnected web of single entities and organizations that will unite, despite their differences, toward a goal greater than any one belief or way of doing things: the future growth and development of mankind as an entity, providing all its members the right to have his own freedom as an individual while providing a system that will care for the entity as a collective whole. 080409 ... z please define: worldwide conversation interact with each other openly interconnected web of single entities and organizations unite 080409 ... They call me Truth I talked about the interconnected web in detail in a previous blathe on this page. This was due to the questions you asked earlier. I could repeat it here, but I suggest you read that blathe because it is still my current model of what an interconnected web is and it is quite a long definition. to put it simply (as simply as I can while still retaining many of its components) i would say that an interconnected web operates not as a singular unit acting as one, but many units acting and reacting to one another, forming collaborations and sharing ideas, lending support freely, encouraging different opinions on a specific subject and breaking down into many hubs (that interconnect and merge at some points as well) to complete or attempt a certain task. Worldwide Conversation: What do I mean by worldwide conversation? A collaboration (collaboration is defined as working together, especially in a joint intellectual effort) of different groups sharing ideas with one another, but on a wide scale, expanding to all continents. This collaboration (as I have defined in one of its traditional definitions) can contain groups, organizations, or single entities (meaning a single individual) Unite: Combine efforts (combine is defined as joining one thing with something else). My use of unite is a loose one (loose is defined in this case as meaning free of restrains. This is almost synonymous with my use of open collaboration (Open is defined as 1. without restrictions as to who may participate 2. accessible, as to appeals, ideas, or offers 3. exposed to general view or knowledge; existing, carried on, etc., without concealment) 080409 ... z i find this idea vague. this kind of thing has been proposed before and has often resulted in be-ins or attempting to levitate the pentagon and lift it into space. i like your ostensible intentions, but without some specifics, it is just word. 080410 ... They call me Truth My vagueness is part of my idea. Like I said before, I am leaving it open for a reason. No amount of defining is going to make my idea clear to you because you can't get pass the vagueness. Nowhere did I suggest trying to levitate the Pentagon into space and I find it interesting that you would make that association. And your choice of often does not include me in the blunders that you are claiming happened in the past. Often is not always, but I undertand your resistance. Specifics would run contrary to the idea I am suggesting and what you are saying is that an idea needs to be specific, always, in order to work. This is an absolute. What you may not realize is that the general becomes more specific over time. If you had suggestions then you would be adding to its specificness, but you seem to only have criticisms about its vagueness. I will say it once more: I am leaving it vague so that as the multi-organization grows and evolves and ideas are discussed, more and more specifics will be created. I want the specifics to be created during discussion by the collective. Everyone builds on the idea. I don't need guiding principles for that. And if i was to make guiding principles i would be contradicting myself. I am trying to propose open collaborations all over the world. What guidelines do you suggest? 080410 ... criti so you're saying you want everyone ELSE to come up with the ideas for you? 080410 ... critic so you're saying you want everyone ELSE to come up with the ideas for you? 080410 ... critic god damn dirty apes. 080410 ... They call me Truth I am wondering if I should even respond to you. But I would be repeating myself again. Why don't you try reading? 080410 ... stork daddy truth, you seem to be coming from a good place. the very need to organize, however, begs the question of guiding principles. there has to be something to organize or organize around. you have to at least get people to agree that there's a problem or need and demonstrate that your approach is a sensible start on a solution. building consensus and defining communities of interest have always been complicated and the history of social movements, revolutions, schisms and the like suggests that any organization failing to identify agreements and disagreements at the onset may fail at achieving even its general and sound principles. as for deciding what those principles are, that's an even trickier question. it is almost a truism that many social movements, considered now to have been responsible for atrocity, did so under the mantle of the good and the right. now i happen to believe at least in the possibility of truths universal to humanity, but the only way to prove their existence is in the lab of human experience. while many questions of epistemology and psychology can be answered on a modest scale, questions of values and social structure are often not amenable to a controlled scientific inquiry. our behavior is in many ways overdetermined and especially becomes a matter of contention when the approach ceases being descriptive and attempts to be normative. the history of social change shows that organizing, and building consensus is a process of proving a truth in a social sense - that is to say creating agreement as to any given problem and any given course of action. your dialogue on this page is of course a start in that direction. but people will simply not sign up unless they're convinced that they at least share basic starting premises. argument and proof can convince them they do, but even then history would suggest you need some basic description of the details, where the devil resides. martin luther king and malcolm x both believed in the good of their direction, as did charles stewart parnell and timothy healy. organization carries with it certain social implications, the spectre of which may not have been as raised, had you suggested instead we create a blather think tank. 080410 ... stork daddy and while i agree that one can organize around agreed procedures and format, without substance being yet completely determined (though the distinction between process and substance is always less clean than it is often purported to be) - even this organization needs a justification. in the case of government it is obviously the establishment of order and the other benefits of social contract. in the case of concerned citizenry acting on their own, one would need some similar shared concern that would override disagreements such that the movement sustains. 080410 ... z three things: i am not critic (for the record) i was not attacking you, rather, trying hard to find common ground sd (as usual) has expressed some concerns in a very coherent and gentle way, covering most of my thoughts along the way. he is quite a diplomat, where i am more direct. (thanks sd) 080410 ... stork daddy no problem z. my initial response was going to be that we should start with my desk, but then i considered the sincerity with which the initial blathe was made. 080410 ... z yours and mine 080410 ... critic I have read this entire page and followed it as long as it has been active. Nowhere along the way have you described anything further than essentially 1. getting people to talk about problems and 2. solving them. So, what? From reading the page in its entirety, the most specific ideas displayed include "peace," "distribution of resources...to end poverty," and "freedom." There are so many predicaments attributed to these objectives that I don't know where to begin. Most importantly: I can truly appreciate your utopian aspirations; however I honestly do not think that they are reasonable. It is a matter of human nature—that is, envy, greed, and apathy. (I believe in the “good” aspects of human nature as well (I have seen them with my own eyes, and acted upon them with my own hands)). Humans, as well as other creatures and theories, have a light side and a dark side. And they aren’t necessarily equal to each other at any given time. Humans are self-indulgent animals. As long as there are humans, there will be inequality, because it is an infinite concept. The closer we get to equality, the smaller the differences we will notice. There are so many factors working against you. The very factor of human nature...I mean, it seems you are calling for people to put EVERYONE else in front of themselves—and unfortunately most people will choose self-preservation over an unimaginable populace. Then again, perhaps I am a cynical old critic. But tell me this, would the world be in the state it is in if this were not so? If humans were capable of maintaining a peaceful and free society don’t you think we would have it by now? More to come, possibly. But I do enjoy watching how you pick-and-choose your responses. 080410 ... They call me Truth Wow, a lot of responses. This is awesome. Thank you everyone for your responses. I am beginning to see why you would want me to create guiding principles. I completely understand why you would think that when someone says organization, it would have certain implications. I must say, despite all your useful advice and your desire to hear guiding principles, I honestly do not think i should make them. I, obviously unlike any successful organizer in history, believes that guiding principles should be set further down the line. It is quite clear that you guys disagree. (Critic, I am still considering even addressing you) I will try to explain my personal mindset as best I can so that you can understand my reasons for not going further than this. (I should have named this page something else, the title of this page seems to hold with it too much expectations) My use of the word organization is not conventional. And my idea (in my head) does not allow for guiding principles, at least not by a single person as myself. I agree that this would be a very difficult thing to pull off. There are many different factors that come into play that will make it very difficult, impractical, and or doomed to failure. However, I do not believe it is impossible. (Hey! I got one guiding principle. There will be no use of violence. The thing is, I am sure that this issue would come in discussion. i was going to say no manipulation but I am sure this would come up in discussion as well.) Okay I am listening very carefully to you stork daddy and I am beginning to form an understanding of this concept you are presenting. You are saying that this organization needs something to justify it existence, like the existence of government is justified as existing to create order through social contract. I hope I am right in this assertion. The suggestion was suppose to apply to Peace Organizations, Freedom Organizations, Organizations that were created to help combat poverty, Organization that were created to help provide health care, Organizations that were created to counteract abuse by the government, etc. I was suggesting that a number of them worldwide(those who agree to it) organize. I am not creating a whole new organization, just a collaboration of organizations already in existence and organization that will be in existence in the future. 080410 ... They call me Truth Okay, now I will try to explain the justification for the existence of this multi organization. It is my assumption, and I could be wrong on this, that these organizations all over the world all want the same basic thing: the betterment of the current human experience, be it through providing better health care, ending poverty, protecting the rights of individuals, spreading knowledge, creating programs, funding relief efforts, and so on. I believe that these organizations were formed to service humanity. My suggestion only applies if this is true; that these various organizations that have been formed all over the world exist because they see a need to help people and provide for people, and they feel that whoever they are helping deserves to be helped. I believe that peace organizations exist because they want peace. I believe that organizations for liberating people exist because they think people should have liberty. i believe that Organizations that seek to end poverty exist because they think people should be able to afford or have what they need in life, in order to survive. * * * * * * In the corporate world, firms form partnerships because they can benefit from each other. They often have a common interest: profit, innovation, a new look in order to bring in more customers. These firms come together and lend ideas to each other that they discuss as partners. Not only that, they also cooperate and share manpower in order to promote their new ideas and increase their chances of success. In some cases, the end result is that all the firms increase profit and customer interest more than they could have done by themselves. this is a very general explanation of the process. In terms of the Multi-Organization, the common interest is humanitarian effort. In order to increase their effect, not only locally but worldwide as well, I am suggesting that these organizations create a partnership based on their common interest. So as to not overly assume that all humanitarian organizations want to better the lives of all humanity, I will ask them this question: Did you form this organization in order to increase the quality of life for the people in your society and/or humanity as a whole? (take note that these organization may have a very focused way of helping humanity, such as providing shelter for the poor) The next question in this succession would be: Do you want to increase your ability to do this more effectively and/or extend your reach further than you had before? (ex. this could mean that instead of just providing shelter for the homeless in your neighborhood, you can also provide shelter for people in your city by collaborating with other homeless shelters in the city, and then in the state, and then in the nation, and then on the continent, and so on) The next question then would be: Would you be willing to put differences aside and form a collaboration with organizations all over the world in order to more effectively engage in humanitarian efforts? (this is not saying that they are not effective. it is simply asking if they want extend or grow in order to extend their reach and ability, through collaboration) After these questions are answered, those who answer yes to these questions could make arrangements to organize an international conference. At this conference, members of organizations all over the world can come together and discuss their ideas and start forming collaborations. This conference may last one week. I also think a website would be a great way to bring all of these organizations together, and they could create forums on this website where they can discuss ideas and problems. Surveys will be distributed. Votes will be tallied. The percentage of people who don't agree with a certain idea will be free to discuss their issues with the proposed ideas. Differences will be openly discussed in order to protect the common interests of the organizations and the multi-organization as a whole. Everyone will be allowed to be heard, and will have the freedom to post their ideas on the website or do their own presentation at one of the Conferences. There may be a few conferences throughout the year in different places, on different continents, in different countries. There may be many. Collaborations will be up to individuals and groups. They will not be enforced by any authority. In fact all organizations will be viewed as equal possessing the power to deny a collaboration or accept or to argue against or for one. The only agreement by those in the multi-organization is that they honor the highest goal above personal and group disputes, and that is the betterment of our world. Because this is on a large scale, it will be a much more difficult endeavor and it will definitely take time to build. It also will be impossible for everyone to agree on one thing to do as whole. That is why I suggest the creation of hubs within the multi-organization ( i explained this process earlier on the page). These hubs can be formed and then broken as decided by the collaborations within the hub. The focus is not to have everyone agree, but rather, to increase versatility and power in the attempt of humanitarian effort. 080410 ... They call me Truth As for critic. It is understandable living in today's world that you would be skeptical and cynical. The reality of the present makes one think that anything beyond this current moment is impossible. To your questions... "would the world be in the state it is in if this were not so? If humans were capable of maintaining a peaceful and free society don’t you think we would have it by now?" I will give you a response similar to what I gave Jeesus. Nothing happens until it happens. Could you imagine...that before the civil rights movement people saying that there would never be equal rights (and I am not saying rights are quite equal) They could make the same argument that you are making now. "If equal rights were possible don't you think it would have happened already?" How does one answer that question? I could begin by saying why do people fight for change? If they had the defeatist mentality to think that something isn't possible because it hasn't happened yet, no change would ever occur. The truth is nothing changes until someone believes that it can and tries to change things. My point would have been made, because in the 60's equal rights were afforded to minorities despite anyone's disbelief in its possibility, and i assure, there were those who didn't believe. Now discrimination hasn't ended, but improvements have been made towards the equality of all men and this is because people organized and fought for it. i am not looking for perfection, only improvements, and methods that can create the most improvement. If cloning was possible don't you think it would have happened already? I assure you, cloning was once believed to be a thing of science fiction. But now cloning is possible. Everything is a process. This can also be applied to humanity. Things change through effort. Some things take more effort than others. But the present is not always a predictor of the future. 080410 ... critic I thank you for your response, and apologise for coming off as aggressive or rude. The majority of my criticism was admittedly in the vague presentation of ideas, which is no longer an issue. I now understand your goals. Best of luck to you. 080411 ... They call me Truth Thank you critic, and I am glad I was able to clear up some of my vagueness. I really appreciate your responses, and please, if you have any suggestions, please feel free to put them here. My ideas are in a constant state of evolution. 080411 ... They call me Truth I am trying to keep this on the recent page in hopes of attracting new or old voices. Does anyone have anything to say about the current model that I have created? 080413 ... z see: a_note_on_cultural_relativism 080424 what's it to you? who go blather from