|
Managing the Spiritual Neighborhood |
| How to Restore the Conscience of America's Communities; A Grass Roots Approach | |
|
|
Review of
Immanuel Wallerstein's The Decline of American Power (1) Thoughts have a powerful effect I jotted down numerous comments as I read The Decline of American Power, and reviewing my own notes, the first one I find reads, "what you write comes true; [it] has an effect". The tenor of Dr. Wallerstein's book overall is not a very hopeful one. The title of the first chapter is “The Decline of the U.S.: The Eagle Has Crash Landed". Compelling negative imagery. Throughout the book he speaks of an imminent period of chaos with an uncertain outcome. More than once he mentions that the "world-left" is in a state of depression. It's all quite discouraging and even a bit scary. Thoughts, and the words that express them, have a powerful effect. Much greater than people realize. There is validity in Wallerstein's observations, but the foreboding statements affect the psychology of the readership, and hence I maintain, the direction and outcome of their actions. People create their own doom with their pessimistic views. We're trained to be objective in our analysis, in every discipline, but such an approach neglects the subjective side of things. Without subjectivity, half the picture is missing; reality consists not just of what is known/observed, but also the knower and the process of knowing. Moreover, when you assume a leadership role in your community, and you grasp the responsibility that attends that role, it seems clear that we should encourage those who follow; to give them something to hope for. I readily admit, however, that I have difficulty following my own prescription in this regard. It's very easy to fall into judgmentalism. My understanding from having heard and read some wise people expound on this topic is that the way to overcome our tendency to judge is by making a deliberate effort to focus on the good. To go out of our way, force ourselves if we have to, but find something positive to hang our hats on. It might not seem possible when you look at the global scene today, but there are in fact positive developments. I also believe that positivity springs from taking action, rather than analyzing what has transpired. If something doesn't work, if there are failures, then try something else. (2) Flaws in a purely objective approach Regarding objectivity: the entire work is based on observing the actions of individuals and groups, currently and throughout history, and from those observations attempting to create a structure that explains what is happening (e.g., the Kondratieff A/B periods that Wallerstein references). Indeed, from what I've read elsewhere, in the works of other authors, it appears that the entire field of sociology, as well as other social sciences, is based on such a methodology. Everything you hear and read in the media, every political analysis, from every commentator, author, journalist and pundit, reflects the same thought process. They observe, they record events, they take polls, they send correspondents to report, and then they categorize and correlate. That's how social and political theory is constructed. I'd like to suggest that this approach is fundamentally flawed. Though people do seem to sense that there is a collective mind, a collective "will", I contend that one will never get to the essence of that will by observing behaviors. You really can't understand why people do what they do by cataloging their actions. You can't get inside a person's head that way. Nor does questioning him work very well either (though, there are perhaps ways to discern a person's character – see my CCA paper). Rather, we must turn our attention away from what other people are doing, and look 180 degrees in the opposite direction, towards one's self. Only by looking with-IN can you reach meaningful conclusions about that which is with-OUT. All external structures are ultimately shaped by our own internal structures. (3) The need for clear definitions (4) Not specific enough for ordinary citizens The book is not specific enough in making recommendations for us, the citizens, the general public, out here in the real world. It seems intended mainly for an academic audience, rather than for working class Americans (or working class Germans, Nigerians, Venezuelans, etc.). But even for the target audience of academics, there are no algorithms outlined, no set paths to follow, which lead to ultimate solutions. Thus most of us are left where we are, uninformed, on our own, subject to the winds of a global economic system far beyond our means to control, hoping for smarter heads than ours to sort things out. Truthfully, the people in academia are just as remote, just as out of touch with the everyday affairs of ordinary people as the captains of industry – the bankers, industrialists, etc. (not to mention the politicians). It has been my experience that all of these university folks are invisible and quite unreachable from down here deep in the urban/suburban neighborhoods. Take, for example, the University of Maryland – a large, state-supported institution not far from my home. There were major quality-of-life problems in my community (Prince George's County and its subdivisions) during the last decade or so – particularly in the area of juvenile crime. I documented these problems (see my book and website), and took them on as a personal responsibility for several years when I lived in P.G. One would think that with such a prestigious institution in my county, I could have had all the direction and support I needed. But it was never available, even when I sought for it. The affairs of academia and the affairs of the community are like two parallel universes. They never intersect, even when the professors and the residents are within spitting distance of each other. Wallerstein's book does not do much to close that gap. (5) The moral quagmire and the search for common ground Throughout the book Wallerstein contrasts the politics of the left with the right, with gradations across the spectrum – ultraright, center-left, Old Left, militarists, socialists, etc. Does it not seem that this is simply a variation on the good-guy, bad-guy theme? That the white hats must defeat the black hats in the showdown at Dodge? But that's just what the other side is saying. It's the same good vs. evil mind-set that Bush and the reactionary folks display in justifying their own actions. I don't necessarily disagree that there is a dichotomy of social forces, but it's not all that useful to couch our arguments this way. We get stuck in a never-ending debate about morality. There must be an attempt by someone intelligent to rise above this moral quagmire – to find the common ground where debate is no longer needed; where one just knows what the correct path is. Moreover, I submit that we should be aiming for an inclusive system of world politics, where every group, every individual is satisfied that their needs are being met. As it stands, when one party gains power – often by the slimmest of electoral margins – the other folks, the non-ruling legislators and the millions of people they represent, are pretty much left out of the picture. Their only hope is to defeat the others next time around, if not through elections, then by other means. Is it possible to imagine a society without conflict? Where no one is defeated, no one wins or loses? If so, what are the steps that will lead us there? (6) No doubt about where we're headed – the bottom-up paradigm There is throughout the book a theme of, "where are we headed now?" Clearly Wallerstein, himself is not sure, and I'm guessing that many of his colleagues are also hedging their bets. But doubt creates confusion. And if there is one thing we definitely don't need more of right now, it's confusion. I'd like to suggest that there should be no doubt whatsoever about where we're heading. As I see it, there is one and only one system (or antisystem) that makes sense. It's called "bottom-up government". It's a new order; a brand-new social and political (and maybe economic) paradigm. In a paper I recently published I outlined some concrete measures that individuals disposed towards grass-roots leadership might take in their own communities in order to accomplish this bottom-up paradigm. I maintain that this inverted governmental structure is inevitable. Human society must and will return to it at some point. Hopefully before we complete the destruction of the planet. My paper can be accessed on the Internet at www.CommunityConscienceAdvocate.org . The proposal outlines some intermediate steps that move us towards the ideal, without having to tear down what we've already built in terms of legal and judicial structures. I've been begging for months without success for lawyers, judges and politicians to read it. Unfortunately, most of those folks simply cannot see beyond the pages of their law books. From the cops on the beat to the supreme court justices, we have blind individuals making our decisions for us. Not only blind, but utterly unresponsive as well. This is the age we're in – the reactionary, impersonal, purely punishment-based mode of governing. If you want to point to a dichotomy in society and politics, here is where to do it: contrast the lawyers – the heartless, by-the-book robots – with those who understand what service to one's fellow citizens really means. (7) No reference to spirituality I'd also like to point out that nowhere in the book do I find any clear
reference to spirituality. There is extensive discussion about religion,
religious leaders, their so-called "spiritual values", and the
political roles they've played throughout history, and we read a lot about
racism, particularly about the way Judeo-Christianity in the West relates
to the Muslim world. But none of this gets to the crux of spirituality
– the foundation of religion. I bring this up because my own arguments
for fixing society rest on the premise that what is wrong with the world
today is spiritual. The spiritual deficit shows up in things like the
Jörg Haider phenomenon in Austria, and other nationalist, anti-immigration,
anti-Semitic, etc. figures and groups, but underlying these gross behavioral
manifestations are more subtle aspects of human existence. I'm learning
from people who study Eastern philosophy that the spiritual deficit is
part of a cycle of alternating ignorance and enlightenment that spans
thousands of years. Thus when we study the history of Europe, we are merely
examining a long period of darkness. Cataloging the moves of a Hitler,
a Bush or a Saddam, analyzing the historical events of the past several
decades, we're learning a whole lot about what others would simply characterize
as ignorance. We're groping in the dark when we could instead turn on
the light. The native Kogi of Colombia
call us Europeans the "younger brother". They make no distinction
between Clinton, Bush or Tony Blair – the persons or their policies.
From the Kogi's perspective the phenomenon that we call "modern civilization"
is destructive and unnatural. |
Notes on the text p15 ... "observing
the behavior of United States and the Soviet Union"... "Washington
also faced more serious military challenges" Comment: Who or what is the United States, the Soviet Union? Who is Washington? Who exactly faced/faces challenges? Is it me? Is it you? Is it the legal documents that "define" the state? Is it the number at the bottom of an opinion poll? Who feels stunned? Who actually senses the challenge? Maybe the generals at the Pentagon think they feel it, but they are a profoundly ignorant bunch. Does it not contribute to mass hysteria, to mob psychology when we repeat what Pentagon generals are claiming? When people say they're "proud to be an American", it sounds like a fuzzy notion imprinted by the media marketing machine. Fuzzy notions do have value, but the actions of states must have a more solid foundation. p19 ... "centrist liberalism ... ideology" Comment: Liberalism is a vague term. Not well defined. At best it's a loose description of the actions and interests of individuals or groups observed and cataloged objectively. Ideology: same thing ... defined by observed activity, rather than derived from logical primitives. p32 ... "the United States and Germany greatly expanded their industrial base ... the United States was the only major industrial power ..." Comment: I guess we're talking about big businesses, and the barons who run them. Doesn't "power" in this context have to do with the ability of wealthy financiers to channel and control more wealth? Here again, does an ordinary citizen feel any of this power, or benefit from it? If their citizens don't feel or take part in the power, is it valid to characterize the nations (Germany, U.S., etc.) as feeling it? Indeed, this raises the question of whether the term "nation" itself is well defined. p35-39 ... "the
Yalta arrangements" Comment: FDR and Churchill were the leaders who held office during the Manhattan project, developing the A-Bomb, later dropped by Truman, that killed 80,000 in Hiroshima and 40,000 in Nagasaki. FDR sent 100,000 Japanese Americans to internment camps. Churchill and the RAF fire-bombed Dresden in 1945, killing 30,000. Stalin killed millions. Even if we forgive or somehow justify FDR and Churchill for the innocent lives they took, how can we understand their inability to prevent the war in the first place; to prevent the deaths of 20 million non-combatants? Moreover, what kind of leader would shake hands and sit down to a state dinner with a cold-blooded killer like Stalin? I submit that truly perceptive people know a psychopath when they see one. Can people with conscience assign any validity at all to treaties made by men such as these? Wikipedia says that scholars view FDR as one of the three greatest presidents. It cites a BBC poll where Churchill was voted the greatest of all Britons. The articles are quite believable. News anchor Tom Brokaw wrote a book calling it the "greatest generation". I would argue that the period surrounding WWII was in fact the spiritual nadir of human evolution. The fact that people today still view FDR, Churchill, et. al. as heroes shows that we haven't emerged from the ignorance of that era. Your comment about Auschwitz, etc. flourishing under capitalism is more than an indictment of the economic system. It suggests that there is a fundamental lack of responsibility on the part of the general populace, which in turn reflects a fundamental spiritual flaw in the individuals who make up world society; a flaw that is reflected by the leadership we choose. p59 ... "the workforce will seek to create some form of syndical organization" ... "political counteroffensives of capitalist groups" ..."democratization of the political machineries ... make the curve of the political strength of the working classes an upward one over the longue durée" Comment: Will society ever break out of this mode of functioning? Where groups must organize and "struggle" against other groups? The very existence of a term like "labor unrest" in our sociological lexicon shows that we're living in strange, unnatural times. Labor should be a joy. Laborers should be happy in doing what they do – not slaves to the machinery of production (and the people who control it), not dragging themselves through the same drudgery day after day, killing themselves – but enjoying life, enjoying their accomplishments, and most importantly, grasping the connection between their own work and the life of the community. Contributing to and sharing in the community's success. Inspired by the people they work for and work with, not merely bargaining for a higher salary or better benefits. In the current age we've ALL become capitalists. In everything we do it seems, the bottom line is always money. I work with some folks whose families come from poor backgrounds – including Cameroon, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Uganda and El Salvador. Most are primarily concerned with making a buck. Many work two, or even three jobs to this end. Sadly, the money is their motivation. We've all been forced down this capitalist road. What I don't understand is how the intelligentsia, the educational elite in our schools and colleges (the economists in particular), fail to recognize how profoundly wrong this is. p63 ... "popular demands [on governments]: educational institutions, health facilities, and guarantees of income ... mean ... rising tax rates" Comment: The government is us– you and me. Such demands are made on ourselves! We, then, must render the service – each one of us. We are all educators. We're all health professionals, and we're all social workers. Whatever resources we spend, is spent by ourselves, for ourselves. Each of these fields has a preventive component that is being grossly neglected by the government (i.e., by us). Everything we do is heavily biased towards the reactive model, from criminal justice to cardiovascular care. Why, by the way, isn't a demand for environmental stewardship included in this list? We have such weak connections to the planet; such poor appreciation for Mother Earth. But maybe that's changing. p68 ... "In terms
of the ongoing reality, it will be almost impossible for political action
to affect it very much." ..."enormous political struggle between
two large camps: the camp of all those who wish to retain the privileges
...and the camp of all those who would like to see the creation of a new
historical system ... more democratic and more egalitarian" Comment: Regarding political action: get local! My former congressman, and long-time U.S. house speaker Tip O'Neill of Massachusetts said "all politics is local". To reach the parties in the other "camp", I submit that we have to go about it person by person, in our own neighborhoods and communities. We have to learn to cooperate with each other, as if as family – always with an eye towards self-sufficiency. If the state of ignorance is too thick in your neck of the woods, then you should move to a place where folks are more responsive, more like-minded. It's about intentional community. But even if you can't relocate, remember that just one beam of light can illuminate a dark room. If we're going to divide the world into two camps, I suggest we do it along the lines of prevention oriented people vs. the reactive folks. Currently the reactive side (including all political parties) far outnumbers the others, but the preventive guys have the advantage of cosmic support. More democratic: smart people are saying that democracy
is not the panacea we imagine it to be, at least not in the area of selecting
our leaders and making decisions. It could be argued that democracy amounts
to not much more than mob rule. We've had it for a good while, and look
where it's gotten us. Egalitarian: we have to be more specific. What are
the minimums required for each person to have a decent quality of life:
material, intellectual, spiritual. I made a rough pass at this in my book. |
p96
... "The struggle against racism is indivisible. There cannot be
different rules for Austria, for Israel, for the U.S.S.R., or for the
United States." ... "Bob Jones University ... forbade its students
to date persons of a different race" Comment: We're taught that "all men are created equal." I'm not different than you under the law perhaps, but human beings are supremely individual. We are each unique, with our own set of qualities, ethnicity, cultural background, traditions. Even physiologically there's an entire spectrum of subtle differences between my DNA and yours; differences in the way that physical codes manifest the non-physical, infinite soul of human existence (or rather, how the soul manifests the body). I want to argue that the law should in fact take individual differences into account. Let's make it personal. Every case. Not with a grossly simplistic characteristic like race, but by looking at each person's environment, upbringing, financial circumstances, character, etc. Eliminate anonymity – these alien judges, distant lawmakers, anonymous juries passing judgment on unknown parties. Get local and get personal. Treat people as family, not as strangers. Rules that govern us in this scenario transcend the written law. They spring from natural law; from our innate sense of justice. This is the very foundation of written law. Our lawyers and judges have totally lost this. The key is to locate that cosmic sense within us, and to keep on contacting it, nurturing it. It might in fact be argued that given a choice of life partner, you probably are best advised to stick with someone from a similar cultural and ethnic background. Not that people should ever be forced into this, but that something important is lost – especially culturally – by forcing us the other way; by artificially mixing and matching people from widely different backgrounds. People are finally figuring out that race-based busing for school integration that started in the 70s actually did more harm than good to the populations it was supposed to help. Psychologically as well as materially. Look, there's nothing wrong with anyone's race! Sadly, the materialistic non-culture that is Americanism is eroding what remains of authentic culture worldwide. Take the Latino culture of Central and South America. Those folks have been culturally devastated twice – first by the conquistadors, and now by MTV and Madison Avenue. The Latin folk music traditions, for example, have morphed into a harsh, Latin Hip-Hop. Young Latino men are carving tattoos into their biceps and joining street gangs. Latina girls wear nose rings and dress up like Madonna, or like cheap Las Vegas strippers. Soon everything that's authentic and beautiful in Latin-American culture will be a memory, like the memory of the native Americans, museum pieces. Is there anyone else who is troubled by this trend? Is there any way to reverse it? p97 ... "In moments
of structural bifurcation, the fluctuations are wild, and small pushes
can have great consequences." Comment: This recalls the butterfly effect (sensitive dependence on initial conditions ) in chaos theory. Taking this principle to its ultimate limit, if smaller actions can have greater effect, then NO action can have the greatest effect of all. The philosophical principle is "do less and accomplish more, do nothing and accomplish everything." Mere intent, mere thought, if it comes from the deepest level, affects what is outside of you. This is what true prayer is about. You can actually manifest things, cause things to happen. p108 ... "three main varieties of movements divided the world" Comment: Movement is not well defined. It's the same problem: confounding the objective with the subjective; defining phenomena by observing external patterns of behavior, rather than finding the internal structures. To clear this up, I submit that we need to think in terms of "shared interest". Say we think of a movement as a community. There are three types of community: geographic, shared interest, and shared spirit (see section 5.6 of my book). Let's say that a movement is a shared interest community whose members participate to varying degree in some social activity. The strength of the movement correlates to the strength of the shared interest community, which in turn is defined by (1) the degree of involvement of an individual in the activity (direct participation, indirect support, etc.) (2) the number of individuals involved to any degree (3) how life-supporting are the activities that generate (or, actually, are generated by) the shared interest; life-supporting for each individual and for the group. Most importantly, community strength is determined by how strong is the shared spirit (i.e., collective awareness) of the individuals. In this way we can begin to get a handle on a measure of movements, movement strength and movement value based on abstract primitives. p116 ... "[Islamists]
insist on the priority of a set of spiritual values, as expounded by an
authorized group of interpreters." Comment: I submit that the word "spiritual" used in common parlance today, whether by Muslims, Christians or Cherokees, is on the main a badly used term. For example, we hear the phrase "spiritual value" quite often. But what's going on is a confusion of morality with something much different. Spirituality goes beyond morality, beyond rules of behavior. Yes, it is ultimately the basis for morality, but not in an intellectual way. Rather, spirituality is an experience. It's a part of reality – the infinite, non-material part. Okay – to be perfectly precise about it, there isn't any duality at all between the material and non-material. Rather, it's all one unity. It's all spirit – me, you, this, that and the other – we're all one ("I am that, thou art that, all this is that, and that is all there is"), and blessed is the person who sees and feels this. Someone should start instructing some of these vocal clerics, of whatever faith, to just shut-up and listen. Yes, there are a few clergymen and lay people practicing various religions who do experience authentic spirituality, but the majority are simply confused about it. As for doctrines and practices, they are the outer trappings, the window dressing of the fundamental underlying spiritual experience. We'll never grasp the whys and wherefores of the practices unless we get to their basis in spirit. p126 ... "What
is going on here? And first of all, in what capacity do I speak of it?" Comment: The author addresses the crucial question: what is his own role? If he is simply a spectator reporting on observations, then his propositions, however lofty, have only intellectual value – limited at best. We have to start making it real. Make it personal. Only in this fashion does one experience his or her civic connection. I submit that this is everyone's function. Everyone who senses civic responsibility (which should mean, everyone alive), if not as citizens of some particular community or nation, then at least as citizens of the global society of man. The term "fundamental values" is not well defined. We commonly read and hear a number of such "value" terms: family values, spiritual values, American values, community values, value system, etc. I don't think any of them are very useful in clarifying our understanding about what we should or should not be doing, what path to follow, what activities to take an interest in. They all take us into the murky field of morality. p135 ... "particularisms
... deny universalisms ... there are multiple stances from which one can
assert particularisms." Comment: Regarding particularism: If we're talking about the written law, then I must respectively disagree here. It's impersonal, unnatural and discourteous (and hence, I maintain, irresponsible) to not take a person's cultural background into consideration, even in simply interacting with one's neighbor, let alone when you're judging him/her, making rules for him, leading him, educating him. In bottom-up government, which is the ultimate expression of civic responsibility, if you or I are the ones governing, it's perfectly okay for our view about what is correct to be colored by our upbringing, our ethnicity, our customs. How authentic and imbued with true spirituality are such customs, is another question. But we should not categorically deny their value. Doesn't it all ultimately come down to a question of force ... all these arguments about freedom and rights? When you don't ever force anyone into something – with threats of violence, or incarceration, impoverishment, or death– not just force them physically, but with legal force – then these disagreements vanish. We're living in the age of fear. We in the U.S. being by far the most militarily dominant country are by far the worst offenders in this regard. We stand over the rest of the world with a club in our hands, until nations cower into submission. We put our heel on the necks of our own citizens, punishing rather than educating. Regarding relevant universalism: Wallerstein's appeal to universalism sounds like an appeal to natural law. I submit that natural law does indeed take cultural differences into account. Truthfully, we in the West have no business even speaking the word "culture". Everything about our materialistic society is anti-cultural. p142 ... "we are
in the middle of a chaotic period ... the nature of this new system is
intrinsically unknowable in advance" Comment: I submit that not only do we know how the new system will be structured, but that it's our duty to promote and proclaim that structure; to actively participate in its creation. Bottom-up government ... self-sufficiency ... individual citizens and communities who "self"-govern ... automatically conducting themselves in a cooperative, impeccable, perfectly courteous fashion. We have to get to the bottom of this ... no pun intended. When you, yourself, are in control of your own senses and emotions, firmly grounded in your own divine (i.e., infinite) being, having achieved some measure of personal self-sufficiency, then it's your obligation to lead others in the same direction. It's grass-roots leadership through community outreach and education. The specific activities and structures that will emerge from this are not actually that important. I took a crack at outlining how an "enlightened" community might look, including how an advocate might interface with the present system, and hopefully steer it in the right direction, in my CCA paper. p150 ... "'democracy', one widespread definition today, is freedom from arbitrary political power. .... in short, the degree to which all those things that are usually summarized as 'civil liberties'..." Comment: It all comes down to force! Every legal action, every governing mandate, every official operation we undertake in this era, at every level, from local to international, is backed-up by an armed marshal. Control your neighbors, your fellow citizens, with force and fear – that's the mode we're in. It's imperative that we find the secret to governing without force, and let others in on it. I did it in Westchester Estates, with modest results perhaps, but nevertheless, showing that it can be done. p158 ..."Today,
we have a long list of sources of discrimination that have become socially
illegitimate: class, race, ethnicity, 'indigenicity,' gender, age, sexuality,
disabilities." Comment: I would take "class" out of the list. Class crosses all of these boundaries. I equate class with courtesy. It's a combination of upbringing and character. In Spanish you call someone "mal educado", literally badly educated, implying that they don't know how to behave. I had a neighbor on Chesterfield Drive that fit this category. Okay as a neighbor, not particularly troublesome (though, doing some stupid, inconsiderate things with his landscaping), but not someone I would ever want to cohabitate with, or really, to even have over for dinner (though, his late wife was quite a different person, a fine lady). Does this place me with the snooty elite? Does it mean I have presumptions about inclusion among "the best", as you put it? Am I fundamentally un-democratic in my thinking because I would prefer NOT to socialize with a man whose every other sentence includes a curse word? Who would bang on my door at an ungodly hour to request some trivial favor – clueless about his manner of requesting it. Who earned a salary much higher than I ever earned basically as a glorified federal security guard, and spent his money on Cadillac SUVs, Lincolns, and lottery tickets (he would visit convenience stores in three states in one round trip .. Maryland, Virginia and DC); who let his eldest son (a smart, friendly kid) run with drug dealers until he was shot to death one night in a D.C. park, gunned down gangland style, not even 25-years-old? And this guy was not the worst neighbor I had ... not even close. Read about Skip, who bragged about slashing some black kids who looked threatening. Or about the infamous 16-year-old Gary, who shot up a car when a girl dissed him. Wallerstein's view of class reflects his social isolation. Ironically, hie and his colleagues in academia are implicitly stationing themselves above the rest of us in their positions as university educators, safely removed from life on the street corners, where the 14 and 15-year-olds gather to hatch their warped schemes, inspired by movies, TV, and computer games designed by PhD engineers and marketed by MBAs. What about shock-jock Howard Stern, a millionaire many times over? He puts his vulgarity on display not just for a few neighbors, but millions of listeners. How about a Donald Trump, a Jack Abramoff, or a Don King? Greedy, loud-mouth weasels all. And dare we attempt to classify a Dick Cheney, a Hillary Clinton or a Colin Powell? Our presumably classless system elevates such as these to the pinnacle of society. They're powerful, ultra-wealthy, and more often then not, ultra-obnoxious. p184 ... "all debates
are simultaneously intellectual, moral and political" Comment: Wallerstein's discussion about politics, morality, intellect and lucidity raises an important point. How do we distinguish between the intellect and NON-intellectual knowledge? The latter is based in experience whereas the former is purely abstract. I submit that the murky field of morality belongs to the experiential side. We can have discussions about morality, but there really can't be "moral discussions." This is not just semantics. "Discussion" in the sense of logical debate or argument (vs. casual conversation) is inherently intellectual. It's only when we act that morality is expressed. It's a subtle but key distinction. Same with politics, which is sort of a dynamic morality within groups. We can write about politics, but the argument itself cannot be called political (however, the publishing of the book could be considered a political act). I submit that the entire discussion, the entire book, is intellectual, as is this very commentary that I'm offering. It's ALL on the level of the intellect. To get a real handle on morality, you have to close the book, turn off the computer, get up out of your chair, go out and get involved for real, with real people, in real-world activity. Then, at the end of the day, sit down, close the eyes, and quietly meditate – settling down the mind, alert but at rest. That's what I do. p188 ... "Will the successor historical system (or systems) be one(s) that maintain(s) the pattern of the existing and past systems, that of a hierarchical, inegalitarian system, or will it (or they) be relatively democratic, relatively egalitarian?" Comment: May I submit that there is an even more fundamental question to be addressed: Will society, and society's leaders require force and fear to govern itself/ ourselves? When you eliminate force in governance, it clarifies things enormously. Not possible, you say? I refer you to my efforts in the 550 home community of Westchester Estates, in Camp Springs, southern P.G. County, outside Washington, D.C., documented in my book, "Managing the Spiritual Neighborhood". p196 ... "most Americans seem to be quite sure ... The United States has the most advanced technology in the world." Comment: There
is a technology of consciousness that
people are not aware of, but that we moderns are starting to rediscover.
It has been around for much longer than the other technologies, and can
be found in some of the few indigenous cultures that still survive today.
It's not as flashy as the electronics, etc. that we associate with modernity,
but it contains some very powerful tools for managing social relations
and the prevention-oriented approach to problem solving. |
p199 ... "there are some Americans who also think that most Americans are morally depraved. We hear this theme from what might be called the cultural right in the United States." Comment: Not only from the cultural right. This is the problem with generalizing about left and right, liberal and conservative. It's too easy to gloss over specific issues. There is not just a liberal way and a conservative way. When we place ourselves in one camp or the other, joining one party or the other, we close our minds to a deeper thought process that provides the full picture. It's possible to define the right or left as those who act a certain way – wave flags, join communes, whatever – but such a definition doesn't do much to clarify what goes on in an individual's mind. It's even less useful to define left and right by how people think. Most people's thoughts are too muddled to be of any value in this regard. Regarding moral depravity: I prefer to talk in terms of courtesy. The elements of courteous behavior are discretion, self-control, acting as if in service to others, respect for the other person, respect for his sensibilities and sensitivities, mental and physical, respect for the environment in which we all live. p213 ... "We must start with our near friends and allies – with Canada and Mexico, with Europe, with Japan. ... then shall we be ready to dialogue with the rest of the world ..." Comment: Again ... who is "we"? Who is conducting this dialogue? The diplomats? The entrepreneurs and businessmen? I, personally, am already dialoging with representatives of foreign countries, including some from Latin America, Africa and Asia. Making friends, forging alliances, establishing a network of influence and mutual assistance. None of these people are employed by their governments, and I am certainly not employed by my government. (Though, I sometimes feel like the government should be paying me!) p238 ... "Action
requires organization. The world left has believed ... that this meant
highly coordinated action... The social components that potentially make
up the world left are too diverse ..." Comment: I submit that there is an inherent order in society, an organizing power that transcends hierarchical political structures. It is latent in people from all ethnic, cultural and environmental backgrounds. An individual can tap into that power by systematically diving within through meditation. (The technique I practice is Transcendental Meditation.) It might seem that chaos would ensue if people were to abandon the governing structures we've established, but when individuals are experiencing higher levels of consciousness, it's just the opposite. There is more coordination, more collective right action. It happens spontaneously. Whatever structures emerge from this are not actually that important. It's the raising of collective consciousness that is the key. Though it might not seem so looking at news from hot spots like Iraq, this expansion of consciousness is already starting to happen. I saw a presentation by a researcher last year (John Davies, U.Maryland Dept. of Government and Politics) that pointed out that the overall incidence of war has decreased dramatically since it peaked around the early to mid 80s. It's a sign that there is indeed a spiritual transformation taking place across the globe. Something that hasn't been seen in hundreds, maybe thousands, of years. p257 ..."The forces who wish to change the system so that nothing changes ... have money, energy, and intelligence at their disposal. ... perpetuate the 'civilizing mission' of the powerful and privileged over the noncivilized others. We must carefully dissect their proposals and call their bluffs. ... the only plausible strategy for the world left is one of intelligent, militant pursuit of its basic objective – the achievement of a relatively democratic, relatively egalitarian world." Comment: There's no doubt that we're living in an age where money rules. I don't like it, you don't like it, but we really can't get around it. Rather than trying to take the money away from the rich, I submit that we need to work with them somehow. Be obeisant, kowtow... let the wealthy maintain their power and prestige (or, at least, to maintain the impression of power and prestige). With the huge economic and environmental problems we face, it's as if we're running in a herd of stampeding buffalo. You can't stop the herd, so let's instead try to nudge them one way or another to keep us all from going off a cliff. Rather than beating up the wealthy with arguments about equality, let's try to steer their actions with an attractive rather than repulsive influence. I'm proposing that we establish some "spiritually oriented" intentional communities in or near smaller cities or towns. Ensure that there is a comfortable existence for everyone – economic, environmental, personal. Establish some basic spiritual requirements for people committing to the community (a tricky area, but one that we must include). The idea of exclusivity not based on wealth but on something else, something loftier, will attract people psychologically. Then try to grow this model; to inspire others to emulate it, with the idea that everyone in the world can live in this fashion, and more importantly, sustain it for future generations. To me a bigger challenge than dealing with the wealthy is dealing with the vocally ignorant (categories that overlap.) How can we get these loud-mouth talk-show hosts to get off their soap boxes, to shut-up and listen? How about the lawyers of the world, and the people with lawyerly mind-sets? It's a tough nut to crack. p267 ... "How can civil society close the gap between itself and the state?" Comment: See my paper! Community Conscience Advocacy ... http://www.CommunityConscienceAdvocate.org p270 ... "A strategy for the period of transition ought therefore to include four components ... The first is a process of constant, open debate about the transition and the outcome we hope for. ... the atmosphere is more favorable today ... the structure of the WSF has lent itself to encouraging this debate." Comment: Not
in my neck of the woods. Ordinary citizens are not even allowed
at the table where debate takes place. My county council, nine
members representing 900,000 people, doesn't permit citizens of Montgomery
County to even address it. There are no "open mike" days,
no "talk-back" opportunities. No responsiveness at all to the
people whom they supposedly serve, and whose tax dollars are paying their
salaries. (However, if you're a developer, that's a different story.)
It was the same in neighboring Prince
George's when I lived there. These legislators are invisible. They're
so far removed from life out here in the subdivisions, they might as well
be debating on the moon. The courthouse has security cameras, bag scanners
and metal detectors at the door. You have to go through a screening checkpoint
just to get a marriage license. It's intimidating and actually insulting.
Our own servants work in fortified bunkers, and treat us like terrorists.
Judges? Who the hell knows who they are?
They live anonymously. The circles in which they travel are restricted
to an exclusive group of professional peers. Once in a blue moon a bureaucrat
or council person might show up at a pre-arranged "town meeting";
if you're lucky, you might get to state a three minute question after
registering and standing in line. This is NOT how government should function.
This is not government OF the people BY the people. If a citizen can't
even participate in decisions that affect his own community, if he's unable
to even approach his own government representatives, what hope does he
or she have to be heard at an international forum? I'm open to any suggestions
you can offer about penetrating this brick wall, this barrier between
government and citizen; to bridge the gap between the leaders and those
whom they supposedly lead. Immanuel
Wallerstein is a Senior Research Scholar in the Department of Sociology
at Yale University. His book The Deline of American
Power: The U.S. in a Chaotic World, published in 2003 by The New
Press, New York can be ordered from Amazon.com |
| Top |
|
 |
|
|
|