I like what you did with this. I saw what the other guy was complaining about. And I think that was really more a semantic collision than a real disagreement.
In the overall context of what you wrote, and because I'm a little familiar with your thinking, it's obvious to me that you're not advocating for the dissolution of the individual into the collective. You're trying to hold both truths in their tension—that we are individual wholes but we are also all parts of a greater whole.
It's difficult to find language that is precise enough to hold such tensions that verge on the paradoxical yet powerful enough to fully expose the insight. Not to mention the fact that others can read subtext that rings their alarm bells or that falsely confirms their point of view even that's not what was intended at all.
For example, I know that when you talk about individuals as nodes, you're referring to network theory. You aren't depersonalizing individuals, which would also be a form of dehumanization. You're referring to the point of view from the whole that views identity nested in the larger system we're part of.
Likewise, you're probably synthesizing from the thinking traditions and principles of cybernetic theory, systems theory, chaos theory, attachment theory, and so on. I see that's so I'm not offended by the terminology. But someone with a different lens on some of the insider terminology could mistake what you're saying for an argument toward collectivism.
I think your underlying idea about how we need to progess is completely on point. I think we are finding the limitations of the current system. I believe that is a compound problem: one half requiring progress, and the other half requiring us to hearken back to truths we've forgotten.
So if I were to suggest editing this as a manifesto, I would probably try to hedge a little more with language protecting the distinction between the parts and the whole so that the system isn't mistaken for a "soup" by those who are on guard against collectivism. And I make it clear that the advancements of our civilization and the truths we need to get back to are safeguarded whole also pointing to the need to go back to even deeper truths and to move forward to more clear and conscious solutions.
Just my two cents. It really was a very brave endeavor and I think you did a good job where it is .
“It's difficult to find language that is precise enough to hold such tensions that verge on the paradoxical yet powerful enough to fully expose the insight.” Agreed! And I have enough hubris to think I can do it.
Thanks for sharing all this, and I totally get that it’s a knife edge yes / and. If it makes sense and is alive, I might do another version of this incorporating your suggestions.
I’d also like to see your version, since you make some great points here. another great quote:
“one half requiring progress, and the other half requiring us to hearken back to truths we've forgotten.”
I think something about this wants to live beyond this comment.
Hey—it takes guts to try sounding out the language that can shed new light further down the path, beyond the currently established beacons of human exploration and growth. That's impossible to do perfectly. It can only be done by incremental progression of thought, philosophizing with a hammer and engaging in a dialectic. I applaud your efforts and the willingness to step on sacred egg shells in order to try feeling your way to what forward might look like.
Maybe I will explore that idea :) I definitely think that you're right: there are more clarifying distinctions waiting to be made between rediscovery of the ancient and discovery of novel thinking. I'm convinced that both the details of the past that are outside our general attention and application, as well as the present-future orientation of creative thought, are both completely necessary to solve our current societal dilemmas.
The human being, a "node" of a network defined only by its relationships, and the greatest virtue is to serve the role it is assigned in the node network, stewarding things that don't belong to it?
That sounds like the sort of thing that would perpetuate class immobility, stifle individual identity, discourage the audacity to dream, and encourage complacency with a paradigm that erases the self in favor of a collective soup. No thank you. I am supported by and participate in collective relationships, but I will not surrender myself to a community role I didn't choose while others reap the rewards of my labor. If this collectivist manifesto is to mean anything, it must ensure opportunity and provision for everyone. It really kind of seems like a reframe of democracy for the sake of a caste system, ngl
I like what you did with this. I saw what the other guy was complaining about. And I think that was really more a semantic collision than a real disagreement.
In the overall context of what you wrote, and because I'm a little familiar with your thinking, it's obvious to me that you're not advocating for the dissolution of the individual into the collective. You're trying to hold both truths in their tension—that we are individual wholes but we are also all parts of a greater whole.
It's difficult to find language that is precise enough to hold such tensions that verge on the paradoxical yet powerful enough to fully expose the insight. Not to mention the fact that others can read subtext that rings their alarm bells or that falsely confirms their point of view even that's not what was intended at all.
For example, I know that when you talk about individuals as nodes, you're referring to network theory. You aren't depersonalizing individuals, which would also be a form of dehumanization. You're referring to the point of view from the whole that views identity nested in the larger system we're part of.
Likewise, you're probably synthesizing from the thinking traditions and principles of cybernetic theory, systems theory, chaos theory, attachment theory, and so on. I see that's so I'm not offended by the terminology. But someone with a different lens on some of the insider terminology could mistake what you're saying for an argument toward collectivism.
I think your underlying idea about how we need to progess is completely on point. I think we are finding the limitations of the current system. I believe that is a compound problem: one half requiring progress, and the other half requiring us to hearken back to truths we've forgotten.
So if I were to suggest editing this as a manifesto, I would probably try to hedge a little more with language protecting the distinction between the parts and the whole so that the system isn't mistaken for a "soup" by those who are on guard against collectivism. And I make it clear that the advancements of our civilization and the truths we need to get back to are safeguarded whole also pointing to the need to go back to even deeper truths and to move forward to more clear and conscious solutions.
Just my two cents. It really was a very brave endeavor and I think you did a good job where it is .
Thank you!
“It's difficult to find language that is precise enough to hold such tensions that verge on the paradoxical yet powerful enough to fully expose the insight.” Agreed! And I have enough hubris to think I can do it.
Thanks for sharing all this, and I totally get that it’s a knife edge yes / and. If it makes sense and is alive, I might do another version of this incorporating your suggestions.
I’d also like to see your version, since you make some great points here. another great quote:
“one half requiring progress, and the other half requiring us to hearken back to truths we've forgotten.”
I think something about this wants to live beyond this comment.
You're welcome! Happy to add to the conversation.
Hey—it takes guts to try sounding out the language that can shed new light further down the path, beyond the currently established beacons of human exploration and growth. That's impossible to do perfectly. It can only be done by incremental progression of thought, philosophizing with a hammer and engaging in a dialectic. I applaud your efforts and the willingness to step on sacred egg shells in order to try feeling your way to what forward might look like.
Maybe I will explore that idea :) I definitely think that you're right: there are more clarifying distinctions waiting to be made between rediscovery of the ancient and discovery of novel thinking. I'm convinced that both the details of the past that are outside our general attention and application, as well as the present-future orientation of creative thought, are both completely necessary to solve our current societal dilemmas.
Love it. It definitely lands.
Thank you!
I am in fact, working on something similar. You can read about it at the GitHub link below...
https://github.com/clg1980/LegislativeSequence
Oh awesome, I'll check it out.
I also just learned about the fine folks at https://www.next250.us/ who echo your ‘Declaration of Interdependence’ by name!
Cool, I'm so glad the experiment is "working." Feels like we are playing on the same fractal.
The human being, a "node" of a network defined only by its relationships, and the greatest virtue is to serve the role it is assigned in the node network, stewarding things that don't belong to it?
That sounds like the sort of thing that would perpetuate class immobility, stifle individual identity, discourage the audacity to dream, and encourage complacency with a paradigm that erases the self in favor of a collective soup. No thank you. I am supported by and participate in collective relationships, but I will not surrender myself to a community role I didn't choose while others reap the rewards of my labor. If this collectivist manifesto is to mean anything, it must ensure opportunity and provision for everyone. It really kind of seems like a reframe of democracy for the sake of a caste system, ngl
Fair, how would you word it instead?