Creating a New World

[Oxajil]

Men ate them before The Fall and they were STO!

How do you know what they ate before the Fall?

You must consume it's the way it goes, and C's said it isn't rally matter because it's concentrating on physical body.

Exactly, so does it matter whether it is a plant or an animal? (I guess I sound really cold now, but we are STS, and this is how we kind of have to feed ourselves at the moment, osit)

 

[Mrs.Tigersoap]

I hope I'm not interrupting by answering the first question of the thread and not the hypothesis of the clearing of the wood..

I think the way we treat babies would be a great place to start. To me, Aletha Solter and the Aware Baby principles are great guidelines. Most of what she says is simply logical. I had already posted about her, I think.

http://www.awareparenting.com/english.htm

We used a lot of her principles for our daughter, against advice from outside (paediatricians, family, friends, etc.) and never regretted it.

Advice like 'let her cry on her own for an hour every night, she'll get used to it and stop bothering you and fall asleep after a while; babies don't understand anything to their environment, so you can let her for a week and go on holiday without her and relax; you should not go to her every time she cries or she'll manipulate you; don't take her in your arms, you'll spoil her, etc.
What babies go through in their first few years sometimes could actually be thought of as abuse. It just helps creating narcissistic people/with a narcissistic wound so I totally understand why these ideas are so promoted.

So I think that promoting baby bonding, baby wearing, breastfeeding, answering baby's cries and cues and healthy release of emotions as they arise (instead of giving a pacifier or distracting from them) would be a great step in the right direction.

 

[dannybananny]

How do you know what they ate before the Fall?

C's said it!

Exactly, so does it matter whether it is a plant or an animal? (I guess I sound really cold now, but we are STS, and this is how we kind of have to feed ourselves at the moment, osit)

It's the same but this is only my subjective view because I don't have heart to kill animal because you can see it suffers and you can't see that on plants, maybe if I could see that I wouldn't eat them but then I would probably die. ;)

 

[Oxajil]

It's the same but this is only my subjective view because I don't have heart to kill animal because you can see it suffers and you can't see that on plants, maybe if I could see that I wouldn't eat them but then I would probably die. ;)

I don't know how it was before the Fall or how STO 3D beings eat. All I know is that we, in our current state, cannot live without food such as we are familiar with. And don't you think your body needs meat (assuming you are a vegetarian)? For the required stamina for example?

Here is something that Laura once said (from http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=10269.msg86897#msg86897):

I've never known a vegan who was really healthy even though they claimed they were. They didn't have stamina and couldn't do the same things that meat eaters can do.

(personally, I don't think I could kill animals for food myself, but I do eat meat)

 

[Tigersoap]

I think that after the one doing the hard physical labor have received their houses, the people doing the cooking should be next.

This is something that bothers me, is that really a need to separate people doing the activities unless it is really necessary ?

To me it makes sense to have common places and private places but created in function of the families and not in function of the skills.

I think there is now too much emphasis in terms of skills/house.

For example, a single only woman's house (or in couple when other things needs to be done between women only) makes sense as does a single men's quarter but not because of the skills but more because of social interaction dynamics.

That's what benefited the psychopaths for millenium, separation based on class or skills (even though some people have indeed different capacities, everyone should be considered able and equal to do things in regards of his/her own capacities but not with an arbitrary standard based solely on the gender or the stronger osit.)

Skills are only important in the context of how does it help everyone in the "new tribe", I know it is not an easy task for modern society man to achieve but it is worth re-thinking our own concept of class and genders osit.

 

[mada85]

What a fascinating thread! I might be backtreading a bit by responding to Laura’s post about the group in the forest, but having been thinking about it this afternoon, here goes.

Remember, you can play with this. There is no test.

How about we imagine a group of people who get together in a forest clearing and decide that they are going to be a society. Say there is 200 of them. There are couples with children and aged parents, there are aged people with no children. There are orphaned children. There are single individuals.

First, the weaker members of our proto-community need to be taken care of. That will be the children and the aged people, although there may be some people with other issues. I have noticed that children and aged people often seem to have quite an affinity for each other, so it is likely that the older people would take a hand in caring for the little ones while the able-bodied adults take care of the group’s immediate needs.

So, our people get together and discuss who does what to ensure the health and safety of the most vulnerable members of the group, and then the group as a whole.

Everyone needs to eat and drink, to get rid of bodily waste, to be warm and sheltered, and the vulnerable members need to be protected. So, the people organise some groups of the able bodied. The first group is under the direction of a skilled hunter (assuming one is present) and go off to find some food – animals for meat, and edible plants, berries, seeds, etc. The second group, perhaps under the direction of a skilled water dowser, looks for a source of clean water. The third group takes on the task of digging latrines at a safe distance from the colony. The fourth group looks for firewood and bedding materials, while the fifth looks for building materials. The sixth group guards the vulnerable people. These groups are not all the same size. Their size differs according to need.

The range of intelligence and skill is normal, that is, there are some very smart people, most average people, a few not so smart, and maybe one or two who are very slow. Some have artistic talent, some musical talent, some are scientifically inclined, some like to take care of others; some are very good at organizing, some can hunt and like to do it; some like to spend their time with animals, some like building things, some like gardening, some like sewing, some like cooking, etc. There are some who have "psychic abilities," prophetic dreams and such, and so on.

So, until the whole group is adequately supplied with water, food, toilet facilities, shelter and warmth, the skills that are in demand will reflect those needs. Later, once everyone’s basic needs are met, the community can be enhanced by art, music, poetry, science, and so on.

How will they organize themselves?

This is a really good question, and raises some of the most difficult issues. It seems to me there is a sliding scale from, at one end, a group consensus to, at the other end, deferment to a single authority. Perhaps the group would choose to elect someone to be the organiser? But, what if no-one in the group is aware of psychopathologies? Would their awareness of the needs of the group as a whole be enough to stop a pathological type from gaining power? Assuming that the pathological gave him/herself away by his/her behaviour. I’m not sure that it would. Such a pathological could play a ‘long game’, manoeuvring themselves into a powerful position under the guise of helping the community, until they only reveal their true nature much later. We know how convincing they can be.

Let’s say that there is an experienced psychologist in the group, who understands the nature of pathologies and psychopathy. Does he/she tell the group about this at the earliest opportunity, or does s/he wait until a concrete example presents itself? Actually, I think such a person could introduce the subject by degrees, perhaps through story telling at the community’s daily gathering. And they could be on the lookout for any signs of such behaviour.

Who does what?

At the beginning, most, if not all, people would have to be prepared to sacrifice self-interest for the good of the group. After all, this ensures individual well-being too. Later, each person’s innate talents and ‘vocation’ can be looked for and helped to grow, alongside the responsibility each person has to give some time each day or week to the smooth running of the community.

How is value attributed to what is done?

A task well thought out and well completed, according to the person’s abilities, to the benefit of the whole community, is valued. But this raises the question of things like art and music which have a much more subjective value. People do not all like the same art and music. So if an artist in our community is making art that say only half the people like, yet s/he is an otherwise happy and productive member of the community, fulfilling all their social obligations, is their work as an artist still valued equally with that of the cook?

And those who clean the latrines, or cook the food, are not to be valued any less than the scientist who builds the first generator to provide artificial light. In fact, the scientist could not do his work without the support of the cooks and cleaners.

So, just think about this small group first of all. Once we get them all "thought out" and are satisfied that it is organic and mutually beneficial for all, we can begin to "grow" our little society and see what happens. Kind of like a Sim City thought experiment.

 

[mkrnhr]

It's the same but this is only my subjective view because I don't have heart to kill animal because you can see it suffers and you can't see that on plants, maybe if I could see that I wouldn't eat them but then I would probably die.

This statement is very disturbing to say the least. If you are given a drone you can pilot from far away with only red (animals) and green (plants) dots on a screen, you will not see the animals (and humans) you kill when you just push a button. Does it make it easier?

In any case, determining the needs of others, and what that should eat/do based on assumptions and personal subjectivity is the beginning of dogma... imho

I have a thought that before shifting to individual houses, a storehouse may be built, in order to ensure the economic stability (abundance) to all the group. Before separating into individual housing, confort and abundance should be assured to all so that the fear/hunger program doesn't start working. And also so that the individual house would be see as a confort, not as a privilege.

 

[Oxajil]

A task well thought out and well completed, according to the person’s abilities, to the benefit of the whole community, is valued. But this raises the question of things like art and music which have a much more subjective value. People do not all like the same art and music. So if an artist in our community is making art that say only half the people like, yet s/he is an otherwise happy and productive member of the community, fulfilling all their social obligations, is their work as an artist still valued equally with that of the cook?

Yes, I would think so. An artist could not only make art for others or for him/herself, the artist could play with the children as well. Perhaps teach the children (or others) something about art, those who want to learn more about it. Artists might also be more creative so they could also maybe help the group with thinking about solutions or ideas.

 

[dannybananny]

I've never known a vegan who was really healthy even though they claimed they were. They didn't have stamina and couldn't do the same things that meat eaters can do.

This is off topic so sorry about that. I don't know about that but it depends from person to person, if you see this video in the end you'll see that there are many athlets that are vegans and are one of the best in their sport. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h1vOOKxBcg&feature=related

In any case, determining the needs of others, and what that should eat/do based on assumptions and personal subjectivity is the beginning of dogma... imho

Thath's their free will to eat what they want, I was not determing anything. ;)

 

[SeekinTruth]

I read this thread today up to page 4 (Reply #58 from seek10) wrote the reply below and when I signed on to post it there was many more posts. So I read those and am replying to Laura’s specific request. I’ll include my original reply after in {brackets}

How about we imagine a group of people who get together in a forest clearing and decide that they are going to be a society. Say there is 200 of them. There are couples with children and aged parents, there are aged people with no children. There are orphaned children. There are single individuals.

The range of intelligence and skill is normal, that is, there are some very smart people, most average people, a few not so smart, and maybe one or two who are very slow. Some have artistic talent, some musical talent, some are scientifically inclined, some like to take care of others; some are very good at organizing, some can hunt and like to do it; some like to spend their time with animals, some like building things, some like gardening, some like sewing, some like cooking, etc. There are some who have "psychic abilities," prophetic dreams and such, and so on.

How will they organize themselves? Who does what? How is value attributed to what is done?

So, just think about this small group first of all. Once we get them all "thought out" and are satisfied that it is organic and mutually beneficial for all, we can begin to "grow" our little society and see what happens. Kind of like a Sim City thought experiment.

I think probably, there should be a community meeting that establishes an initial assessment of abilities and know-how and a very loose non-centralized organization of division of labor along with immediate prioritized needs and then medium term needs that will come up in the not too distant future. All of this can be adjusted and improved later as work and relationships start and data accumulates with some experience. Obviously hunting and gathering would be of immediate necessity, especially if they did not arrive with much provisions to sustain themselves for very long.

As far as how value is attributed to what is done, maybe have a consensus if possible of how each thing benefits the whole community. In any case, with this hypothetical scenario an overall loose structure may be established, the primary value and thrust of which is to have the needs of each and everyone met and then work on having everyone be able to contribute their best and grow to fulfill their potential to the maximum possible under the circumstances in the longer term, creating and adjusting whatever community relations / organizations are necessary to accomplish all this.

But, again, how to make sure that self-centered individual(s) don’t try to take over and manipulate / exploit the others only for their own benefit? The community should discuss this possibility and exchange ideas of how to prevent it.






Original Reply:
{What a great thread. And already some really good thoughts expressed. It's going to be tough coming up with everything at once, but ideas will evolve and develop as more people participate.

The importance of "proper" education is definitely going to be crucial, and there’s already been excellent points made about it, including the quote from Laura.

I guess the first thing to do is to outline what constitutes STO vs. STS based on what the C's have taught and what has been further elaborated by this network over the years. They would be diametrical opposites that complete and balance each other. So to start, we should make a basic overview. And since we are in an STS reality we can work by doing everything from the opposite approach. It would be easier to start with general principles and then think long and hard and fill in the details and specifics through networking.

STS involves control, domination, constriction, violation of free will (through manipulation, or whatever way possible, etc.), lack of faith and trust in the inexhaustible abundance of creation, concealment, lack of true choice (again through manipulation, deception, etc.), fear of loss, possession, exclusivity, hoarding, taking all one can. On the other hand, STO would involve freedom, nurturing of all / giving freedom and space for all to grow and unfold in their own way & flourish and fulfill their innate potential and nature / lack of domination, expansion, preservation of free will, faith and trust and openness in interacting with creation, revealing - giving all the information and tools necessary to make a real choice, lack of fear to try things and learn and not fearing loss, no need for possession, inclusion, sharing, giving all one can.

So one of the first things that would need to be organized, implemented, and administered is the proper teaching of the existence and legitimacy of both STS and STO, the necessity of both to exist, the differences of which is which, and to enable to truly, freely choose.

Ponerology will be extremely important. An in-depth understanding of psychology and psychopathology must take a central place in creating a world where non-pathological people can’t be manipulated by pathological people to do their bidding.

Not getting into the details of how, but getting a bit more specific as to what: the economic system should be set up to encourage and reward cooperation and sharing, discourage and not reward hoarding, but instead to encourage the circulation of created wealth / value from which all will benefit; to reveal and closely examine how, currently, false scarcity is created and enforced where abundance can exist and be nurtured - all leading to widespread and sustainable prosperity.

To compare and contrast actual systems / organizations which have existed or are currently in existence as to their STSness or STOness in every field or as many as possible such as education, theology, political-economic (political and economic systems should probably be examined together as aspects of a whole), etc. Nothing should be taboo to examine as objectively as possible without dogmas and sacred cows.

A good example would be to examine monotheism as it currently exists as the ultimate ponerization of spirituality. What does this "god" claiming to be the creator of all and everything really represent. A detailed analysis of Yaweh’s demands and what these really reflect. Would non-pathological people respect, love, and admire a person (not claiming to be God) with Yaweh’s attributes and demands and threats or only fear and loathe him or her, etc. This and many other fields of inquiry should also be scrutinized in terms of how no alternatives are allowed, questioning of the system (not just organized religion but any system, such as monopoly capitalism-finance capitalism) is not allowed etc. Why would this be if it is SO great, really the high point of all others, then why are all alternatives reacted to as being so threatening and must be attacked, vilified, ridiculed and propagandized, trying to manipulate people’s thoughts about them by using paramoralisms and paralogistics.

As far as politico-economic organizations, there are many alternatives to what exists today (and I’m sure there are others who have much more detailed knowledge than me in this area) like hunter-gatherers (where accumulating possessions was inherently counterproductive and all members seemed to have MUCH more leisure time than today’s wage earners), and even settled economies (though non-centralized) where fair and equal value were traded such as using grain based (and there can be others) local currencies that encouraged spending rather than hoarding, or bartering / credit for goods/services provided to get other goods or services needed, etc. (all of these can have problems / drawbacks but can be improved with experience and disinterested thinking).

The thing to keep in mind also is if we began to shift more and more toward Service to Others, all sorts of possibilities would probably open up that we can hardly even conceive of now because we would be aligning with this Thought Center, and as a result, getting more and more input and help and energy from higher density STO / higher / "future" selves.

These are just some initial thoughts. After thinking more deeply maybe I’ll post more specific ideas or as others contribute their ideas, we can just elaborate and develop more details and variations.}

 

[Nević Nenad]

I see it very simple

After building first few houses I would ask women among us what they think for whom we must build the next house. It is easy to hunt and to build houses but it is hard to keep all of that together and in order, and women are usually better and more natural in that.


Maybe some daily briefings at the evenings would be good, to see what is already done and what is still need to be done. Everyone would report to the rest of the people how their shares of the work are prospering and everyone can make suggestions. Scouts would report their observations and their estimation of possible dangers. (I would apply for scouting. And gardening when not "on a patrol" :))


Food would be shared as equally as it can, but with consideration to the personal needs regarding the work that person is doing, hunting and building is physical work and requires stronger food i.e. But women would have the last word about the village doings, and how the food and care would be organized.


Maybe keeping family system would be good, but it could also be village as family of families, like the all people are like very close relatives. And family and whole society would be build around woman/mother not man/father.


Of course all of that requires individuals with no trace of pathology and narcissism, and individuals totally opened mentally and emotionally.


Someone said beehive, I disagree with that, beehive is a machine. Maybe it would be better something like very individualized people but with harmonic thinking and doing. If someone is hunter one day, he could be gardener the next, everything to the needs at the moment, of course with consideration to the personal inclinations.


About valuing of the work. If someone is contributing to the all, the all will contribute to him/she. No personal assessment and rewarding. If his/hers people are contended that is already a reward.

 

[Buddy]

Wow. This thread is growing faster than I can keep up with!

I agree with all the points made so far about the initial organization, and the principles/guidelines about acquiring of houses, etc.

I'm probably going to get in trouble for this, but I'm wondering...if we are only starting with around 200 people, are we ready to settle down and build a lot of houses already? We have hunters, gathers and scouts, but how soon before the hunting and gathering perimeter becomes so expanded that it takes longer and longer to return with food, etc?

Should the community consider being more mobile awhile longer using sturdy, temporary shelters and amenities?

I know my knowledge is limited here and there will be people for whom it would be very difficult to be constantly on the move, so I don't really know. :(

 

[Helle]

That is definitely a consideration. So, maybe after the house for the doctor, the ones who do the hard, physical labor should be next in line. And if there are several of them, instead of trying to decide who works hardest, that group should let the universe decide by putting a bunch of stones in a jar with one of them having a mark on it. The one who chooses the marked stone gets the next house and the others accept the decision of the universe and wait for the next draw?

I'm not sure I agree that the ones doing the hardest physical labor should necessarily get houses over others. They have worked so hard, they'll easily fall asleep anywhere ;)
I vote for letting the universe sort out housing, after the Doc's house. (and the sick, elderly, small children, pregnant etc.)

 

[Laura]

Let's slow down a little bit and stick with our little nascent society in the forest clearing until we can extract some principles from what we have created/observed, okay?

Meanwhile, it would be helpful if ya'll would take a little break to watch "The Trap" - a documentary series by Adam Curtis. I know parts I and II are available on youtube, and probably part III as well. Just put it in google and you should find it easily.

It's a shocking film... about social issues... and how wrong things can go when the ideas/theories of pathologicals are taken as legal tender and widely disseminated in our world as the model of reality.

After watching this, maybe we'll think about this world we are creating -virtual though it may be - in a different way?

 

[mamadrama]

This is something that bothers me, is that really a need to separate people doing the activities unless it is really necessary ?

To me it makes sense to have common places and private places but created in function of the families and not in function of the skills.

I think you have a point, Tigersoap. If we are to prioritize who gets private living space first, and I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly?) that all adults/families who desire private living space will eventually be accomodated, it should be due to need. So, with this in mind, I think another factor to be considered is whether the individual is an introvert or extrovert. Using the definition of introvert to mean those who rejuvenate their energy/spirit by spending time alone as opposed to the extrovert who is rejuvenated by being with others, it would seem that privacy would be quite a factor in the well being of the introvert while the extrovert might be completely content to wait for more private housing. Just a thought.