Hi everybody
First of all i want to apologize because i haven't read this entire thread and according to this there are some points that probably had been discussed (i don't know now if i have the time to do it but i want to share my thoughts), but i'll read it ASAP. I think it's a very interesting subject that excites me and i have been thinking about it for years. The real question IMHO is if all this subject is susceptible to be applied in this pathocratic world, because i guess we have to "get rid of a set of weights" before to arrive to an initial situation that allows us carry it out.
To create a STO society IMO it's fundamental end hierarchies in all aspects and areas, and nothing must be done without the knowledge and support of all citizens if that's possible.
I believe that there are two ways to consider, the individual and the group and there must be a feedback in the sense that the individual must be useful to the group and vice versa.
Well following these ideas one probability could be a double flow from the particularity to the generality and vice versa, i'm going to explain it in the following way:
A basic concept is that everybody must feel comfortable with their respective task and at the same time be responsible, the common good must be the priority.
Speaking in terms of a country, state, community or every individuals group, the organization in this double flow could be:
1- From individuals to group: Imagine a building, every dwelling and every member in this dwelling. The key is the information flow. In every dwelling the members have to share all their thoughts according to their individuality to show different points of view and look for solutions to their "concerns" in agreement, and to have a representative member (this representative member is chosen by the members and has the responsibility to look for the common good in the dwelling as a way to serve others) that will share the dwelling's thoughts in the building meetings. These building meetings are useful to share all the thoughts in the respective dwellings and look for solutions to their "concerns" in agreement, and the meetings (and what happen during its course) must be reported to the others dwellings members by their respective representative, at the same time these dwellings representatives have to choose a building representative according to the commitment and responsibility shown in the meetings and how this commitment and responsibility has been implemented in facts. At this point the buildings' representatives have a neighbourhood meeting where the process is the same, then could be local meetings, state meetings, country meetings and global meetings. At this point i guess you understand the idea. When the amount of people represented is very high there could be several representatives (as many as needed) instead of one, i guess in a neighbourhood, local, state, country and global level. In this sense only the people that has demonstrate their commitment and responsibility in the meetings and facts in all previous levels could be candidate to be a representative in the following level. By the other hand these representatives can be revoked in the same moment that they don't fulfil their role.
I think that's a good way to get the real "concerns" in a worldwide scale, and according to the nature of the "concerns" they can be solved in different levels, the good thing is that as the information flow is the most important aspect in all levels and between all levels the solutions created in a place to solve a matter can be quickly translated to another location, it seems to me a natural and coherent way to work as a society.
2-From group to individuals: There are two ways to understand the group concept i'm speaking about, the group as a whole, and the group as a compendium of different groups of individuals that have a particular common ground.
The representatives in the different levels i spoke in the point 1, have to provide solutions to the society so they have to expose the matters to qualified people to look for an answer.
In this moment is when the group comes into play, in first instance to solve a concrete matter the ideal procedure could be to ask to qualified groups in which common ground can be related the matter, and they have to provide a solution or redirect the question to other group that would provide it. In the case that things remain unsolved. They must be redirected to the entire group as a whole in order to look for the best way to supply it or take the necessary ways to develop a solution in the future.
The group's role don't finish with this, every group expert in one area (science, education, agriculture...etc) has the responsibility to develop their area, improve the things and to propose to the whole group different progress ways, looking for the feedback in the rest of the individuals and operating according to the common good and the will of all. There is no one in-charge, there are different groups with different knowledge that is offered to develop different possibilities and the entire population have to decide which ones are going to be focused and developed and which ones are going to be refused.
In that way there isn't a thing that is going to be done without the support of the whole.
I know that there can be situations in which scientists (ie) could feel frustrated because the population choose a way that isn't the best according to their knowledge (and the scientists can be right), but if something isn't going to be developed may be that it isn't the moment, and the experts have to be humble, serve to others working towards the common good according to the will and choice of the whole, and going on proposing what they think waiting for the time it would be developed.
The information flow must be redirected towards all directions /levels/groups, and received from all directions/levels/groups.
---------------------------------
As we are speaking about a STO society i guess that pathocracy and its puppets are out the equation, but i have to remark that if an individual or group of individuals is/are considered pernicious to the whole and don't collaborate as the rest of the people, they must be separated according to the common good to avoid people that don't work towards the common good.
---------------------------------
Some implications about this point of view:
Institutions as we know today aren't necessary ( the expert groups are self-sufficient to work by their selves according to the common good and will without external interference).
Government as we know today isn't necessary ( the representatives which only task is to serve the society haven't power or control over anything, they are mediators between different individuals and groups to facilitate the information flow).
Laws as we know today aren't necessary ( there can be agreements accepted by all that can evolve, disappear, or keep according to the common good and the society will, being adapted and/or changing like an living entity according the context)
As everybody work towards the common good, providing to the whole with their particular task, all the members are considerated in the same way understanding that all the task have the same importance to the whole population.
Every individual have to be considered with equity according to the particular idiosyncrasy, in all aspects (educational, professional ... etc)
There aren't individual problems, they are all problems to the whole, so everyone will help everyone.
The money, in my particular opinion i think that is obsolete and i feel a certain rejection about it as i'm sure that isn't necessary as we have been driven to believe and for sure we can look for a better way to exchange everything, but it can be used in a correct way for example making all salary in the same amount because as i told before all the task have the same importance to the whole population, and must be considered and rewarded in the same way.
Every group of experts have to look for new paradigms in their respective field, this is an urgent aspect even today because dramatically pathocratic thinking can be found easily in all areas.
Obviously working towards the common good shows that military or weapons aren't necessary.
So this society i propose would have by one side the experts in different fields that work solving the problems suggested by the people, and proposing alternative forms of development and research, by other side the people that really is actually involved in decision-making and exhibition of concerns and by the other side the representatives of all the groups: civilian, scientist….. that are the mediators and allow the information flow in all context
Important note: The actual society must be always present as how the things should not be done.
PS I guess I can elaborate this and write more about it but i’m really tired (i’m writing for 4 hours this post and i’m dull),
and i have been reading after posting. There are some similar ideas.