Renewing the Social Evolution of Humanity (was: Renewing the American Experiment)

[BJ Peters]

Artur-- I appreciate your thoughtful reflections and comments on this
piece and agree with most. I particularly liked your concept that there
should be an ETHIC that can resonate with everyone of good mind and
heart. I would suggest that this is not far from a sense of spirit that
some would call G(g)od.

Be Peace--BJ

On Saturday, July 31, 2004, at 06:47 AM, Artur Silva wrote:

> Hello all:
>
> First, as I have not read the original message on the
> "American experiment", I would like to thank Paul
> to call my attention to it (and BJ for sending it).
> Indeed I could not open the address BJ sent, but I
> have discovered an alternative way at
> http://www.futurenet.org/korten/kortenexperiment.htm.
> I agree with BJ that this text is worth reading by
> everyone in this list.
>
> But should it be discussed here? In the beginning I
> would tend to agree with Paul that it was interesting
> to know the text but to discuss it here would be
> somehow off topic. Then I red the text more carefully
> and thought differently.
>
> The point is: we have been discussing about things
> that are also somewhat off topic like, for instance:
> - the practice of peace
> - the evolution of consciousness
> - and some others
> and no one claimed they were off topic.
>
> So I wonder why is it that this particular subject is
> different from the others. The last post from Paul
> clarified this:
>
> -- EVERETT813 at aol.com wrote:
>
>>> When 9/11 happened, we had a several posters who
>> were blaming the US for that
>> cataclysmic event and posting so herein.   They were
>> challenged, primarily by
>> myself, and eventually left off the polemics.  I
>> just didn't want us going
>> down that road again.   That was my concern because
>> Korten's hypotheses are
>> certainly challenge-able and have little or nothing
>> to do with OS, the practice
>> and processes, etc.   At least with the practice of
>> OS, we know somewhat of what
>> we speak from experience.
>
> I don't remember anyone blaming the US and, for sure,
> not the American people nor the "American Experiment"
> but only specific actions from some American
> Administrations. Actions that have also been
> criticized by many Americans, like the unilateral
> interventions in Vietnam or Nicaragua and, more
> recently, Afghanistan and IRAQ, not to refer the
> change of the US Administration's position about
> Israel and Palestine - or about Angola, by the way).
>
> So I think that what worries Paul is this part from
> Korten's text:
>
> «Reality: No foreign nation currently presents a
> military threat to the United States. The major
> threats to our domestic security come from terrorism,
> financial instability, environmental stress, and the
> inequality and social breakdown that fuel both crime
> and terrorism. All are threats that elitist economic
> and security policies accelerate. Conventional
> military power is not only useless in addressing these
> threats; its application further worsens the
> conditions that cause them. In nearly every respect
> military policies supported by the elitist security
> story are increasing terrorism in the world and making
> Americans and others less safe.
>
> The claim that the terrorists who most threaten us
> hate us for our freedoms and must be countered by
> unilateral military assaults against what we perceive
> to be rogue states is more than disingenuous.
> Terrorists hate us not for the freedom bestowed on our
> people by democratic institutions, but rather for our
> frequent use of the freedom our economic and military
> power gives us to arbitrarily oppress and humiliate
> other nations and peoples. The arbitrary and
> unilateral use of our military power to which the
> elitist security story leads adds fuel to terrorist
> anger, swells the ranks of terrorist organizations
> with new recruits, undermines the international
> cooperation needed to actually deal with the terrorist
> threat, and makes us less secure».
>
>
> And maybe also this:
>
> «The ease with which a small group of elitists has
> established a political lock on a nation that prides
> itself on its democratic ideals reveals a disturbing
> truth: the United States is not a democracy, but a
> plutocracy — a country ruled by wealthy elites — now a
> deeply corrupted plutocracy of the far right. The
> stability of any political system depends on a story
> that provides its moral legitimacy. This is especially
> true for a political system based on an unjust
> concentration of power and privilege»
>
> But there is another very interesting part of the text
> were Kroten mentions something that should interest
> IMHO all the OS community:
>
> «To renew the American Experiment we must create
> spaces in which those who believe in America’s
> founding ideals can engage the search for shared
> stories that advance a bold vision and a practical,
> experience based theory of human possibility — of an
> America and a world that works for all — of the world
> that can be.»
>
> If those spaces are not "Open Spaces" what is OST
> after all?
>
> But as this list is not only American but
> international maybe this is also worth reading:
>
> «The United States faces a defining moment of
> challenge and opportunity. The goal of creating a
> world that works for all is integral to the American
> Experiment. The United States is a natural social
> laboratory for advancing its realization. Nearly all
> the world’s many traditions come together within our
> borders by virtue of our rich racial, cultural, and
> religious diversity.And we have a long history of
> social and technological creativity and innovation.
>
> The time has come to renew the American Experiment.
> This is our opportunity to join with all the world’s
> people and nations in a cooperative effort to realize
> the ideals of liberty, justice and opportunity for all
> people everywhere. This work calls us to a national
> dialog in search of valid and uplifting answers to
> crucial questions in stories with the power to
> redefine our national political discourse and lead us
> to a new sense of national purpose.»
>
> So commenting Korten's text (and knowing that anyone
> can always apply the "rule of two feet" and delete the
> message), I would say that I agree with almost
> everything but have two main criticisms to Korten's
> views:
>
> - in spite of the last quoted paragraph, Korten is too
> much "USA centered" to may taste. Maybe this is
> important by tactical reasons to talk to the American
> people in this moment, but there is not such thing as
> "an American experiment". First, because the "American
> Experiment" was preceded and the "French Experiment".
> Second, because, since the "discoveries", we live in a
> global world and there are not "local solutions" for
> global problems.
> Third because a similar change has happened in other
> countries (replace Reagan by Thatcher and the mix
> Clinton+Bush by Blair and you will have a similar
> "evolution" in the UK, to give only one example)
>
> I have changed the subject, as you have noticed,
> because of that - we need a global solution preceded
> by a global discussion and pursued by an International
> body like the UN. [The universal importance of the
> next USA presidential elections is that Americans will
> chose the person that will continue to impose (or not)
> an imperial and aggressive politic to all the other
> peoples (and what I most like in Kerry is his
> international experience as well as the international
> experience of some of their closest)]
>
> - my second disagreement with Korten is his agreement
> with the "religious" dominant view in the USA (and
> where the Founders have not been able to follow the
> French experience): IMHO all all political discussions
> must be civic and not use the sacred. Religious people
> should fight, side by side with atheist and people
> from other religions, to impose that the name of God
> should never "be used in vain" by politics. The state
> should be a-religious and political representatives
> should be forbidden to speak about God in public
> discourses.
>
> We are in need of an ETHIC that can be followed by
> Cristian's, Muslims and atheists and that because of
> that can not be founded in the "sacred" of a pert of
> the population.
>
> [Personally I have always admired Brian's
> interventions in this list because, as far as I
> remember, he never referred to God. God, the sacred
> and Spirit (with capital) should also, IMHO, be
> considered off topic in this list].
>
> Regards
>
> Artur
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>
> *
> *
> ==========================================================
> OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
> ------------------------------
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
> view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
> http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
>
> To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
> http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
>

*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html

To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist