Click here to go straight to Criteria
Introductory Note august, 1997
Criteria summary list
back to Schema
back to graphics home page
back to text home page
August 1st, 1997
Introductory Note:
Two Different Ideas
One Idea
Indeed, within this idea, 'work-out-well-for-everyone' is nature's way, and is what the human behavioral structure was designed for specifically. Within this view, it is understood that the terrible conflicts between people, as manifested in the atrocious wars, mass hunger, mind-destroying dishonesty, unspeakable crimes and so forth that have plagued human-kind through recent millennia are entirely solvable problems, are an anomaly in the hundred-thousand year history of humans, and are the result of some terrible misunderstanding, some terrible, repeating pattern of conversation and interaction between people that can be sorted out and solved - cured, in both the letter and spirit of the term 'cure'
And as in medicine, cure does not come from 'killing the bad'; that is not how medical science works. As in medical science, which is nothing but a lower level form of human conversation, cure comes from changing the balance, changing the "back and forth", changing the "homeostasis" of the larger system. Within the metaphor of the high level of medicine, of biology, of the way this bioecosystem works, you build on the old; you don't "sweep it away", you don't kill it.
I call this the "Work-Out-Well-All-Around" view, and identify it as, politically, the "Leftist" view, encompassing the entire range, in formal political terms, from Liberal to Communist, and often labeled "progressive".
Within this "work-out-well-for-everyone" framework, the deliberate mis-reporting of one's perceptions of literal reality - or, more abrasively put, "lying about what one understands" - is neither required nor helpful, and indeed, such misreporting is always harmful.
And because the 'work-out-well-all-around' framework fully conforms to the basic patterns of nature, the basic patterns of the way this bioecosystem works, this "frame of reference" fits together, with comprehensive consistency, to anyone's cognitive mind, and requires no specific individual or individuals to "believe in".
It conforms to reality, and consistantly adds-up within the overt, conscious, clear-light-of-day, careful and critical consideration over time, cognitive, mind of, again, every person, and as such, it stands on its own.
The Other Idea
Within this view, hostility, competition, 'one-against-the-other', and the 'winner/loser' idea are said to be "built-into" nature, and "built-into" the human behavior system. Under this idea, it is claimed, "some-people-will-always-do-poorly", and it is said, "that's just in the nature of life".
Within this idea, you (allegedly) solve problems by 'killing the bad'; by destroying the old; by inducing weakness and harm in the opposition.
Again, this is not how things change for the better in nature, but this (mis)understanding, is within the prevailing, 'work-out-poorly-for-at-least-some-people' frame of mind.
I call this the "Work-Out-Poorly-For-Some/Most/All" view, and identify it as, politically, the "Rightist" view, encompassing the entire range, in formal political terms, from Conservative to Nazi, and often labeled "reactionary".
This idea requires dishonesty, at all levels of the system, as there is no conformity at all to nature's operations nor to the basic blueprint that human behavior was designed for.
And because this type of system makes no sense whatsoever, and does not conform to what can be cognitively understood, it requires "belief in" a strong individual, or "belief in" strong individuals to be maintained. It cannot "stand on its own" in one's cognitive mind.
Just a little history . . .
It was not the first time that such an idea has swept the planet. At the last turn of the century, around the 1890s, and the 190ohs, there was a similar sense, again, in Mexico, in Europe, in China, and right here in river city. Unfortunately, the political reaction then too, proved overwhelming.
The reactionaries, the financial and corporate chieftains of the day, the persons with high level control over society, who were committed to enforcing the "work-out-poorly-for-some/most/all" framework, arranged for the slaughter, out of hand, of the entire European working class, by the millions, and then in turn, arranged for the still more deliberate slaughter of possibility, by outright Holocaust in Europe, by invasion and civil war in China, by deception, engineered dislocation, and disease in Africa, by death squad, organized hunger, and related violence in Latin America, and by super-sophisticated economic, media, and ecological manipulation throughout, by this time, every corner of the planet.
And in all those 'repressions', it was, and is, always, always always always - whether in Latin America, Asia, Africa, Europe, or anywhere else - the writers, the artists, the communists, the socialists, the teachers, the healers who always headed the list of those to be eliminated, one way or another; to be, in fact, exterminated. Specifically.
Indeed, by this time, it seems like there is practically no one left alive with a clue as to what a healthy human society, realistically, is supposed to look like, nor how to go about figuring it out. But what happens if such a proposal appears, a work-out-well-all-around explanation, in spite of the death by unspeakable torture of so many millions who died trying. Is everyone so sure that, under all circumstances, the reaction cannot be solved, cannot be overcome? And indeed, overcome with words, ideas, reasonability, a change of "back-and-forth" interactional system?
Further I ask, is everyone so committed to the security that conformity to the present dishonesty system provides, so terrified of falling "out of the loop", so to speak, that the very possibility of clear-light-of-day exposure of that dishonesty system raises, to too high a level, anxieties regarding personal exposure and failure?
I'm making a proposal, in the Schema/Backbone paper, in the Summary paper, in the Elements gif image chart, and in the Components chart, all at this site, and in the still as yet tragically unpublished Paradigm itself. It is my assertion, that overall and definitive solution - cure - for the large-scale problems that humankind has faced these past ten thousand years and faces currently, can only come, Not in the context of desperation, and Not in the context of collapse the old or "the ashes of" the old, but rather in the context of people having the room, the resources, the leeway - the nutrition, the safety, the tools, the secure attachments, the art supplies, the time, the education, the warmth, the stable base, the conversation - the leeway, the protection, the room for taking many things into account, for stepping back and considering difficult things, carefully, critically, and comprehensively, over time.
Unsurprisingly, as far as I can tell anyway, the idea that it would take high levels of protection to bring about the desired change, seemed to be Karl Marx's view as well.
It's not that good protection is absolutely required for positive societal change, nor is it true that good protection will automatically bring such about.
But I think it is true that the more desperate, frightened, and out-of-resources that people become, the more likely it is that they will seize on reactive, low-level, easily-manipulated-outside-of-consciousness, one-against-the-other ideas, and attach to "strong", (vicious) leaders instead of their own cognition.
And, the more space, the more room, the more resources people have, the more likely it is that they can take into account many things, accurately assemble many things - integrate - the more likely it is that they'll be able, physically able, to think and decide within the "work-out-well-all-around" framework.
In my view, that is the upside of Mr. Clinton's push to saturate the political climate with, what many understand to be a booming economy.
As far as I can tell, the plan I am presenting is best considered in a general climate of protection, because it requires a person to think critically, taking a lot of things into account, which requires a certain stability, and presence of mind. And this plan also, in itself, raises personal-exposure (risk) anxieties.
As best I can tell, the whole point of this (alleged) economic "boom" is, that in this climate, there are more than a few people, who in fact, do have the room.
As such, I would ask the reader to read through the following list of "Proposal Criteria" carefully, and cognitively determine the suitability of the plan I present, suitability for cognitive consideration; particularly as contrasted with any other alleged "work-out-well-for-everyone" plan, anywhere.
Paradigm From California
© 1978-1997 by Neil Miller;
P.O. Box 31035; San Francisco, California 94131
e-mail - neil@imaginenine.com
www - http://imaginenine.com
Criteria - November 17, 1994
Introductory Note - August 1, 1997