Post-imperialism-A-Template-for-a-New-Social-Order

[Joe]

What's wrong with competition? You do know that even on a school sports day, kids compete against each other either as individuals or as houses? Competition is not necessarily evil? It can be a form of play! It depends on the situation. What is sport without competition? Might as well call it something different. When kids play tag, what do you call that... One kid chasing another... Competition! They are competing on speed otherwise one kid might as well just stand there and refuse to run I.e you are not playing tag anymore...

Yes, competition is natural, but the idea is that it would not be elevated to the status it is today, and there would not be any glorification of victory over others. Again, I think you've totally missed the underlying principle of the postimperalist society. It is based on community and inter-community spirit, where the idea of dominating others is not a personal or social goal.

 

[SeekinTruth]

What's wrong with competition? You do know that even on a school sports day, kids compete against each other either as individuals or as houses? Competition is not necessarily evil? It can be a form of play! It depends on the situation. What is sport without competition? Might as well call it something different. When kids play tag, what do you call that... One kid chasing another... Competition! They are competing on speed otherwise one kid might as well just stand there and refuse to run I.e you are not playing tag anymore...

Yes, competition is natural, but the idea is that it would not be elevated to the status it is today, and there would not be any glorification of victory over others. Again, I think you've totally missed the underlying principle of the postimperalist society. It is based on community and inter-community spirit, where the idea of dominating others is not a personal or social goal.

Yeah, the crux of the matter about values and principles is totally being missed.

No one is looking down on athleticism and/or physical prowess, etc. or anything else (e.g. ditch diggers or grave diggers). But there is the issue that those who excel in music or advanced maths, for example, the geniuses in those kind of categories actually can't be compared in a straight forward way with athletes. The spread of the talent level compared to the average is way, WAY more than physical abilities of top athletes to the average person. Though on the ground the much smaller difference between the abilities of a top athlete compared to an average person makes a huge difference, those abilities are actually much closer to the average person than a Da Vinci or a Mozart or a Tesla to the average person.

And that brings into question the whole Darwinian evolution theory, because why are such higher abilities even needed by humans. In the process of the standard evolutionary theories, the physical prowess and athleticism should have evolved a much greater spread to the average because they would be needed to survive in the past of humanity; whereas math genius or super musical genius wouldn't contribute to survival. So this is hinting at real untapped human potentials and why are some people endowed with them.

Anyway, the whole point of the article in thinking about and probing how the worst aspects of our societies could be greatly improved is being muddied at this point in the discussion. It seems harder for some to just get out of the mindset of current ponerogenic ideations and see what could really be possible. Or so I think.

 

[SeekinTruth]

The most contentious issue is the awarding of community points, since they would have the same value in that society as money does in our society. Perhaps FOTCM is the petrie dish version of that system to find where the pitfalls are. The pathologicals are definitely going to try to manipulate the community points system so that they can get more power, so that is the lynchpin that would require the most work to hammer out.

Yeah, but the whole point is to create the environment/atmosphere where it's all about service and not about getting more power. The minute details of how to administer it all to prevent problems was not gotten into for obvious reasons. It was a broad outline of values, principles, and target goals to create a better, more human and community centered world.

 

[bjorb]

[quote author= LW]What's wrong with competition?[/quote]

What is the difference between unhealthy competition and healthy competition you think? This has already been basically answered by several people in this topic.


[quote author= LW]Its like saying the communities in the ideal society will have militias but you will expect never to have conflicts? Whaaaaaaaat?[/quote]

It’s supposed to bring conflicts down. You can’t eradicate it totally. But you can put a system in place that would prevent total escalation.

Drugs, prostitution will happen anyhow. That’s why regulation is better than isolation.

Its not only a good system, its also functions as a school. The whole system encourages responsibility and being community active.

It is meant to run on its own without direct 4STO support. 4STO would mainly teach, assist and share. If you intervene you may intervene with potential lessons. Independence encourages responsibility. That doesn’t say that intervention happens where accordingly. Behind the shadows it probably will. But I think its important for civilizations to stand on their own without someone constantly holding there hand.

But you can put a good system (school) in place for them.


[quote author= Neil]we eliminate their proxies and they're going to have to come down in their spaceships and do their dirty work themselves if they still want to mess with us.[/quote]

If balance will come, that means a world without psychopath dominance. Maybe that's why an invasion is imminent anyhow. They probably need another 3STS race to do it for them. Surely they have something to pick from in their intergalactic/hyper-dimensional empire. It really all comes down of leveling the playing field with them I think. To really have an opportunity of chancing the tide.

 

[kalibex]

On "Eugenics." It would probably be the village elders, perhaps in conjunction with the national government. The threshold for that would probably be conditions that are untreatable with proper nutrition and socializing. The reason would be, so 4D STS doesn't regain a foothold by creating a new race through infecting the weakest among us.

Ok; while that's not an unreasonable argument per se, I think that EQ, not IQ, is the main area of vulnerability. That, and I'm skeptical to begin with of the forms of measurement of 'worthiness' (like 'IQ') that rose from this ponerized culture. In other words... aside from smoking out the psychopaths... designating some as 'worthier' than others to be allowed have the full range of human experience... may actually be ponerized thinking that's trickled down from those lurking psychopaths.

On "Paternalism." I thought it was directed more toward Gender Theory, since Pierre mentioned a 3 year maternity leave. Women shouldn't be forced to compete on a physical level with men "because they are basically the same." They are free to choose to, but in my experience they rarely do.

Correct me if I was being hyper-sensitive, but I got the distinct sense of 'Won't be allowed to' engage in certain physically dangerous pursuits, which reminded me of the usual myriad of paternalistic "You can't do that because you're supposed to be having children to feed the Machine" rules we've been subject to for so long here in 3D STS land. I think it's most likely that un-coerced women will reproduce sufficiently and not be terribly likely to engage in needlessly dangerous thrill seeking pursuits (which may be in and of themselves forms of narcissistic attention-seeking).

I'm not sure about the gay couples and children thing. I've heard conflicting reports about whether it is beneficial or detrimental to the children, and of course the shaman subject has been broached here, but I don't know enough about it to have an opinion. I suppose it is related to the severing of the human-cosmic connection that Pierre discusses in his "Mummy, why is Daddy wearing a dress..." article that is the result of the rise of "faux homosexuality." Maybe, in light of the PEAR studies, it is intended to discourage an activity which can lower humanity's cosmic potentials.

Yes; can this be elaborated on? It looks to me as if the working hypothesis is something to the effect that a small percentage is 'born' gay, but that weird imprinting events (do you think that gay parents are more likely to accidentally do this to their children?) turn a larger percentage 'gay' than should have been. If so, is there a concern that the latter 'accidental' group has some special vulnerability? Is more prone to paraphilias? Something like that?

The most contentious issue is the awarding of community points, since they would have the same value in that society as money does in our society.

Obsessively driven to gather and hoard some external symbol of 'worthiness' as this culture is now, yes, due to the rampant insecure attachment/narcissistic injury we're stuck in. But minus that...?

Perhaps FOTCM is the petrie dish version of that system to find where the pitfalls are. The pathologicals are definitely going to try to manipulate the community points system so that they can get more power, so that is the lynchpin that would require the most work to hammer out.

If we're going with the assumption (lacking any other option right now) that we'd be dealing the same mixture of normals and 'infecting' pathologicals, then yeah, they would try to use the community points system to appear 'normal'.

I try to imagine how it might have been in the past - perhaps once a tribal member had been observed long enough to be labeled, accurately, as pathological, I assume they would either have been cast out (probably in hindsight, a mistake, if they survived to join and infect another tribe) or killed. Then I try to imagine, what if it were possible to 'scan' and identify the newborns as normal or pathological - immediately after birth? Great...if such a system were accurate, and couldn't be subverted. It would have to be assiduous. And all it would take is one miss... Or one person who, perhaps tasked to humanely dispatch such an infant, to be induced to only pretend to, then to hide it... Or one parent who would successfully flee from the judging, in fear that the child would fail it. That's all it would take.

 

[luke wilson]

Sports is small potatoes and if that is the biggest problem in the new society... then... society would be doing well.

SoL have just come out with another video regarding an ideal future... but this time in terms of technological development which has evolved to cater to emotions.

http://<iframe width="560" height="...oY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

In summary, they hope for 4 new pieces of tech all aimed at facilitating human relationships

1. Mood Reader - This one reads your mood and is able to communicate it to another person in a more succinct way than you can verbally. Basically, the premise is that we are quite bad at communicating, let alone reading how we truly feel, that as a consequence we needlessly get into difficult situations with others as a result.

2. Spouse finder - This is one is a dating app on steroids basically. So, you are hooked up to it all your life and it basically knows everything there is to know about you based on real time data collection as you go through life. Everyone else also has one. So what it does is that it matches you with someone out there based basically on this data i.e. real life objective data that is matched against another person and it deems that you 2 are the most compatible given the analysis of the data collected.

3. Socrates - this is basically a piece of tech that makes up for the shortfall of self-knowledge you might have.

4. The career locator - this again is a piece of tech that matches you with the perfect career for you based on your latent talent and potential. Basically another piece of tech that knows you better than you know yourself.

So in short, in this future world, technology has evolved to fill in the adage "know yourself" but beyond that, this is linked into the economy and other people so that it enables a good life in society and amongst your fellow human beings.

It's amazing how many different types of ideal societies there can be. For SoL based on the many videos they've done on this subject, basically, ideal society is based on people getting into the right relationships, having emotional awareness, being able to find the right jobs. It's basically a world where the human being is hooked up to what is best for them individually and what the needs of society are.

In he SOTT Focus ideal society, it looks like the society revolves around small communities, being governed by council of elders and life is essentially based around community and inter-community spirit. It's not to dissimilar to the above I guess in terms of spirit.

Then you have the resource based ideal societies where society is built around optimal use of available resources and sustainability.

It has to be said though that all these models somehow don't seriously consider that humanity is rarely free to make its own choices, that there are external, more powerful and downright nefarious forces that do in fact own this planet and do in fact own us and our bodies and chances are these same forces have empires spanning multiple living systems i.e. and therefore they can call upon resources that we can barely even begin to fathom. These people are unlikely to be sat around doing nothing when earth bound human beings are busy going around doing their own thing coming up with perfect societies... interference and collision is inevitable, whether in 3D or 4D. They interfere with the ruling systems currently in play, at will! they can shut down tech facilities at will, abduct at will, erase memory, mess with timelines, genetically engineer life forms etc these guys are on a different level. In 4D they might not have the same privileges but what they'll have is the advantage of already being solidly established into whatever social memory complexes they exist in already + the relationships and alliances they have with multiple ones, into whatever empires they are part of, into whatever knowledge they've already gained, into whatever help they receive from higher life forms sucking life and energy from lower ones...

If above so below... then all you have to do is look at the animal kingdom, look at this one and you can see that 4D is not some sort of utopia where you'll be safe and protected just by virtue of being there... predators will still exist, injustice will still be there, oppression won't magically disappear, imperialism isn't just going to up and vanish by itself... an ideal society won't exist just because those in it want it to be so... they will still have a multitude of external influences whether benevolent or malevolent to contend with.

I'm sure we all agree on this.

 

[Lan8r]

Yes, competition is natural, but the idea is that it would not be elevated to the status it is today, and there would not be any glorification of victory over others. Again, I think you've totally missed the underlying principle of the postimperalist society. It is based on community and inter-community spirit, where the idea of dominating others is not a personal or social goal.

I am no fan of "Professional Sports" (As in 'Profession', in which you get paid). 'Sports', on the other hand and in and of themselves are pretty cool... Team sports (ie: baseball, soccer), individual sports (ie: cross country skiing) and my personal favorite - Dressage, or any two member sport composed of a Human/Animal team! Even Ballet and Gymnastics. All 'Sports' in my view.

I can appreciate the dedication a person might have to be the 'best they can be' at a sport they truly love. Particularly if they are gifted and talented in that sport. I can even understand how that dedication may appear to be, or may even become 'obsessive'. And that desire easily manipulated.

What I have a problem with is understanding how we, as a society, define 'competition'. It seems that we do see it as a glorification of victory over others (and not just in Sports). I don't think that is the natural, normal human conception, but what do I know.

It's been many years, but I used to love to go watch a local baseball farm team play. It was very much a family affair. They had a barber chair in the stands so you could get a hair cut while you watched the game. A Golden Retriever who brought a basket of towels and water bottles to the Umpires between innings and many fun things for the kids to do while the folks watched the game. I thought that was a great way to do sports. Okay, they were farming for the professional teams, but the atmosphere was far from what would ever be seen at a major league game.

At one time I used to keep the stats for a community softball league in my hood. A group of 'adult men' enjoying a sport, or so I thought. Until I heard the 'coach' say 'good we got them fighting among themselves we can win this now'. Not to mention the endless hours of watching the 'video replays' of the game. And constant criticism of my book keeping. It appears that a ground ball between their legs, deflected off their glove that allows the other team to gain two bases, does not constitute an error. But what do I know.

The competitiveness, win at all costs (even if you get a massive brain injury), instigate a 'civil war' in your opposition and the repetitive 'slo-mos' of 'Professional Sports' have a negative affect on community sports. On the Community of Sportsmanship. Or so I've witnessed.

Aside from my sports rant, I really like this template Pierre has proposed. It promotes creativity and allows for free will while curbing the influence of psychopathy. It promotes Community and offers the opportunity for Human Spiritual growth. What else, on Earth, are we here for?

 

[bjorb]

[quote author= Kalibex](do you think that gay parents are more likely to accidentally do this to their children?)[/quote]

I believe it has to do with the 'Goddess energy' (feminine energy) which is essential for raising children. (Motherly love, sacrifice etc) Girls are born with a developed emotional center. By boys it’s the intellectual center.

Of course both need to be fused but women having their emotional center more developed from the start gives them the ability of being better able to raise children.

Children raised without the 'Goddess energy' can spell disastrous.

This may also has to do with the reason why women 'Goddess energy' has always been put second place (Men above women ) Or why its been corrupted. It’s a very powerful force.

Our most important tasks are not our careers etc. It are our children. The new generation. I think this new-society has its priorities well placed out.

 

[Pierre]

Yes; can this be elaborated on? It looks to me as if the working hypothesis is something to the effect that a small percentage is 'born' gay, but that weird imprinting events (do you think that gay parents are more likely to accidentally do this to their children?) turn a larger percentage 'gay' than should have been. If so, is there a concern that the latter 'accidental' group has some special vulnerability? Is more prone to paraphilias? Something like that?

The idea is that marriage consecrates an union between two 'sister' souls. Those souls can incarnate in individuals of opposite sex or same sex. Therefore marriages is open to heterosexual and homosexual couples.

However, nature made humans such that only heterosexual couples can procreate/have children. Therefore the 'rule' is that only heterosexual couples can have children (through procreation or adoption).

 

[kalibex]

...women having their emotional center more developed from the start gives them the ability of being better able to raise children.

While there is certainly a general mother - infant bonding instinct, I remain... shall we say... a bit... ambivalent about some of the 'essentialized' notions of gender and gender roles floating around out there.

At least the required parenting classes (as apparently it isn't so instinctive, after all) are for both parents.

Would any emotionally mature mother risk herself unnecessarily when she has responsibilities? I really doubt it. No need for any, shall we say, 'legislation' to that effect.

On the other hand, if we're talking about a scenario where humans move forward into a post-'crash' (of some kind) world, with people still being 'messed up' from the myriad traumas we've been exposed to here, then yes, education and mentoring to improve child-rearing outcomes would be crucial.

 

[kalibex]

However, nature made humans such that only heterosexual couples can procreate/have children. Therefore the 'rule' is that only heterosexual couples can have children (through procreation or adoption).

Any thoughts, then, on why some gay couples have felt a drive to include a child or children in their family?

 

[bjorb]

[quote author= kabilex]While there is certainly a general mother - infant bonding instinct, I remain... shall we say... a bit... ambivalent about some of the 'essentialized' notions of gender and gender roles floating around out there.[/quote]

Raising children is the task of both of course. The father is just as responsible and accountable. But without a developed emotional center children cannot be raised with the care and love they need.

It just happens that women have it from the start. Men as a general rule don’t. But they can develop it. Just as women can develop their intellectual center and fuse both in the progress.

Listening to nature is important. It is the respected way creation intended. Our lessons are tied this way. We came to learn certain lessons and our bodies are meant to assist us in that. Gender roles have their purpose.

OSIT.

 

[Pierre]

However, nature made humans such that only heterosexual couples can procreate/have children. Therefore the 'rule' is that only heterosexual couples can have children (through procreation or adoption).

Any thoughts, then, on why some gay couples have felt a drive to include a child or children in their family?

Couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual, feel a drive to have children for reasons that are usually wrong: social pressure, hormones, narcissism, etc.

Community being the core unit of society, children are raised by their parents and their extended family (the community). Thus, an individual who has no children and feels a strong urge to nurture can take care of children in his/her community.

 

[Mal7]

I think this template might work best for a particular community that is in agreement about making this form of social organization a reality. I have great reservations about the idea that it should be enforced on the mass of humanity. If it works for one community, other communities are free to say, "Hey, it works for them, let's try it too".

My reservations about the template are that it seems like a very authoritarian society, like Orwell's Big Brother society in 1984. There is the potential for what John Stuart Mill calls the "tyranny of the majority": even if most of the population "vote" that some social measures are good, this may unfairly penalize or ostracize a minority of the population.

I think the role of the state is too great in this template. People should do what is ethically good because it is ethically good, not because they receive social recognition and points from the state. If human history tells us anything, I think it is that the state does get things wrong. Power corrupts. Liberalism may lead to excesses and degraded morals, but so too does excessive control by the state, even if you call the state the "community" or the "elders".

On the idea of reporters being vetted by the community, this seems on the surface like a good idea, but in practice OSIT too much censorship has a regressive effect. Minority views are not always correct, but sometimes they are. So I think it is important that there is a balance between too much freedom (shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire should not be allowed) and too much censorship. Based on today's ponerized societies, the kind of reportage and objective claims that would pass the test of social acceptability would I hazard to guess likely include ideas like "fluoridation is good", or "humans are causing global warming". The counter-argument to this would I guess be "But the society of this template will be more enlightened, they will have an objective knowledge of what is correct and what is not correct." This counter-argument seems like utopian thinking. What reason is there to think humans en masse will somehow become smarter in the future after the fall of the present system?

 

[bjorb]

[quote author=Mal7]What reason is there to think humans en masse will somehow become smarter in the future after the fall of the present system?[/quote]

By the suffering that will hit us all caused by the present system. It may be that systems like this will be naturally formed after.



[quote author=Mal7]I have great reservations about the idea that it should be enforced on the mass of humanity.[/quote]

I rather hope people see the purpose of it. Some suggestions are just plain logic, like going back to the gold standard and eradicating the speculate market.



[quote author=Mal7]People should do what is ethically good because it is ethically good, not because they receive social recognition and points from the state.[/quote]

In a perfect world it would but people generally are unable to recognize sincerely good to false deeds. People cheer for psychopaths and ridicule/hate those who want to safe them. We need to put some kind of system in place that could help flush them out. Community points can offer that. Especially since psychopaths are lazy and rely/manipulate others to do their work for them.



[quote author= Mal7]My reservations about the template are that it seems like a very authoritarian society, like Orwell's Big Brother society in 1984. There is the potential for what John Stuart Mill calls the "tyranny of the majority": even if most of the population "vote" that some social measures are good, this may unfairly penalize or ostracize a minority of the population.[/quote]

Everyone has a responsibility. It’s not even all that hierarchical. It’s more of a network of people taking care of each other. It reminded me most of the Native American tribes. Where community comes first. And not the greed of a few like it is now.

Mega corporations are also made impossible. What is there purpose anyhow? What is the driving need to absorb everything? Keeping it all-local also brings stability. It also brings the joy back in communities. Corporations like wall-mart plunder whole towns and villages of their butchers, bakers, local shops etc.

Not to mention that all research that would benefit us all would be community owned instead of privately.



[quote author=Mal7]Power corrupts[/quote]

Its more that power attracts psychopaths but even if it does corrupt. Growth is regulated. No more superpowers. Why does anyone wants to become a superpower in the first place in a peaceful world?



- The only impossible task of the article I think is to divide countries up at 3 M each. Historic ties grow to deep + it would be seen as an act of war (Balkanisation of the world) But I do understand its purpose. And who knows what would be left after balance is restored.