COMMENT ON : The New Human Rights Movement: Reinventing the Economy to End Oppression, by Peter Joseph

Although this book shares with UPLIFT (Up2Met) longterm and significant goals, it is an example of what UPLIFT attempts to reveal has a major flaw – focus on one (or only a few) paradigms as THE “cause/solution”.

The flaw in achieving big goals (ending many problems) with simple (small independent variables) solutions is that the Temporal Implementation of any set of project/objectives to achieve the change requires other changes, not addressed.

 

The Zeitgeist Movement – (founded by Peter Joseph) does exhibit elements of what I might imagine to occur in an UPLIFT Movement. Exploring their online info (not their 320 page book) I see their focus is primarily about somehow transforming the Capitalist system, with little thought to the organization of a new humanity, beyond a reformed economy and monetary system. To me, that a better humanity will automatically emerge from this socioeconomic transformation is (typical human) naiveté. Joseph seems to have a perspective of sociological determinism, which seems in conflict with his objectives to influence change.

 

It may appear that UPLIFT also focuses on only one objective:  Uplifting the Distribution of Cognitive Competencies in the Global Human Population, significantly and by means consistent with our best Sci/Tech and accounting for the real potentials/limitations of humankind.

ANY program that doesn’t include a strong emphasis on UPLIFTING, is doomed to failure. The current distribution of Cognitive Competencies in humankind is grossly inadequate to engage our Crisis-of-Crises challenges, with accelerating MSC (Magnitude/Scope/Complexity).

Economic change must and will accompany UPLIFT. UPLIFT accepts the current “state” of humankind and doesn’t propose quick&easy solutions. Magical Awakenings of Everyone is a pipe-dream that blocks viable actions. Economic Centered proposals are also grossly insufficient; although how humans acquire, exchange resources is essential – but shouldn’t be the singular or dominant concern.

Almost everyone concerned with our future propose somewhat specific objectives and goals, while criticizing our current systems and ways.

A human-nature flaw is for humans to confuse stating an objective (solving a problem) as implying they have a solution (to the problem). This is a common delusion. Also, most humans are prone to simple cause-effect solutions; whereas the changes-over-time required by our real challenges involves much greater MSC, and simple causality is inadequate.

Peter Joseph’s intention to remove the class structure of civilization unconsciously implies its continuation, by not facing the impossiblity of most contemporary humans comprehending his goals and operational-plans (if they exist) without significant uplifting, and even be resistant to any attempts to “educate” them.  UPLIFT accepts this challenge. The current epidemic of polarization (The Trump Phenomenon) should illustrate the powerful barrier to change that we face. In this age of silos, informing is a grossly insufficient tactic, in the absence of any coherent strategy for emergence.

Over the decades, I have failed to share the basic insights of UPLIFT (in its many variations) with those who DO respect my mind and DO seek to comprehend, often personal friends or colleagues. The best (historical and contemporary) minds attempting to comprehend human systems change appear unaware of the simplicity of their best efforts. Capitalism vs Alternatives is a cartoon, even when it involves sophisticated mathematics and empirical testing in real systems.

What each individual human “experiences” about the whole of humankind is a highly distorted, tiny fragment – however believed to be their “true and objective wrld”. That Nobel Prize scientists share (at different levels) this same delusion with the uneducated points to a intrinsic limitation of the human brain. This limitation is complex, but might be characterized by Georg Miller’s 7+/-2 Law: limiting the number of independent variables for a “system” a human is capable of attending to in their “realtime” specious present.

Modern humans have invented sophisticated mathematical tools and models to work with and represent systems with far more independent variables. This has not relieved this biological/psychological limitation for holding more compext systems “in our minds”. Nor has our ability to LIST ten to even hundreds of variables, helped. Indeed, it appears that for thinking about real systems (beyond remembering random digits) the limitation is more 2 or 3. Yet, because we can talk about more complex system, we have the delusion that we can “imagine” them and “work with them in our conscious minds”.

Individual humans can have systems with a few more independent variables organized in their “subconscious minds” and move their attention – sequentially – through different sets of 3D perspectives.

My lack of mental imagery (in all sensory modes) appears to have enabled me to move more freely between many, different 3D perspectives and that my subconscious (nuet) has a more general system than others – whose mental imagery limits the scope of their inner wrld. My lack of imagery also enables me to LIVE COMPLEMENTARITY: to not demand any small set of variables to emotionally become an “objective” reality.

Here I begin to wander into the many dimensional reality, for which this mode of discourse is inadequate.

Author: nuet

01/24/1935. BS-physics RPI 1956; MS-physics UofChicago 1958; PhD-physics Yale 1965; PhD-Edu Psy Uof MInnesota 1970. Auroral Research Byrd Station, Antarctica 11/1960-02/1962. MINNEMAST curriculum dev 1964-68. Woodstock. faculty Pima Community College, Tucson 1974-1997. Transdisciplinary scientist, philosopher, educator, futurist, activist. PC user since 1982. "Wife". daughter, 2 grandsons. 5 dogs & 7 cats. Lacks mental imagery in all sensory domains.

0 comments