Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Integrating Panarchy and Monetary Systems

Posted January 12th, 2012 by Brian OConnell in Politics

I felt supported by this article on Integral World called " Panarchy: The Political Paradigm of an Integral Society, by Bryan O'Dohererty" . I also came to the same conclusion in a past post, Forms of Government. The problems I am seeing from the many expressed works from integrally minded( Not necessarily Integrally centered, and it shows), they either form a integral idea around social integral holocracy without addressing a monetary system( By far the one I see the most) with a great dependency on individuals developing up to integral. And others that focus on money and how we can have a pluralistic system with different forms of money, credit and/or mediums of exchange( I see this much less than the former). But I do not see anyone,( Let me know if you seen any) which has integrated forms of government with forms of economics and money. And I think I know why. If you focus on the money system it becomes clear, the current conventional view on it is clearly not correct. Meaning how we think banking is run, is not how they actually run. An example would be the FED bank, thinking it is a governmental institution. But it is and has been a private bank that has more power then the government ( True the government gave them this power, but after that happened in 1913, the government became its drug addict, and could not reverse it) and has dominated politics ever since( JFK was killed because he tried to change the money system). And this realization, that banking is not run how economist think it does, has not been digested by integral at all as of yet. Thus Integral has been quite silent in its ignorance.

And the works that focus on how to create a integral community, as the Panarchy article above shows, either try to compromise the left with the right both in party and in ideology and leave economics out all together. I think the article by O'Doherety is great but it lacks any mention of a monetary system. I have the same view/solution as panarchy but with a triple domain Integral economic solution. As Panarchy focuses on politics, the economics and monetary systems would need to be proposed also, which I have done here.

Which brings me to the awareness that the Integral movement so far, in the absence of expressing a solution( Other than saying people need to develop, which undermines the integral praxis, so hypocritical) is just another form of (second tier) SUBTLE nihilism, as compared to the gross nihilism of first tier. But don't just see me as the only one saying this, these others have their own take on how Integral misses the monetary and economic problem, Brian McConnell and Troy Wiley on IL.

And if you are staring to get your head out of your ass from this( Which I doubt, cause your heads in Ken's ass, most likely) then what to do? Our last chance to follow normal channels of change is Ron Paul( A green libertarian, something Integral has not identified yet, they see an orange libertarian and a turquoise libertarian, but a green libertarian?? huh). Or its OCCUPY the void to our(our children included) death. I hope in Integrallife 3.0 , I can find the Integral occupy movement to eat some nice food with before I die. See you on the otherside of the AQAL matrix.

Please Login to Add Comments
show all sub-comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

UR invoked

Posted January 12th, 2012 by Layman Pascal

Maximizing inner development to integral levels is necessary-but-not-sufficient for planetary change. Heathy body-brains, inner practice, and community co-creation still leave the inside & outside of the sociological infrastructure pretty much intact.

We need to be thinking: What are the characteristically "integral" patterns which characterize physical health, pre-frontral brain activity, integral level wisdom and integral-level conversation AND THEN what are the technological, economic & governmental protocols which express this?

The significance of this topic is what we have in common. As we've covered before, I think there is a problem with the monetary system and the Fed -- but I don't think its existence is necessarily the problem. I don't care if its government run, privately run or non-existent. All of these are secondary issues to me. I think the orienting programs of their charters, the ways in which they draw their mathematical conclusions, the means by which they select employee, the methods by which they come to decisions about action -- these are they key issues which allow flourishing or corruption by at the state level and the monetary level.

One problem is the difficulty that most people (even integral) have in thinking about this dimension of life. Even a whiff of economic, legislative or sociological examination is enough to turn off most people who have a mystical, philosophical or therapeutic orientation. That means most of the better people. It has to become really simple in order to get people into the debate. Your post, for example, has links, mentioning "panarchy", mentions your somewhat agreement with it but dislike of its absence of monetary critique. These things are enough to shut most people down. And we can legitimately complain about their shutdown... but somehow we also have to figure out how to talk these idea in increasingly deep AND simple forms. This enables them to get onside and to contribute. But how to do it? Very tricky.

Obviously the Marxists has some limited success in popularizing their critiques. And Ron Paul is likewise having some success. I don't think either of them are addressing the roots and I suspect both could cause more harm than good. But the ideological reactions which "automatically" support the current techno-economic and legislative habits of society have already passed into everyone. So we know they can be engaged in this fashion.

Wilhelm Reich's concept of "work-democracy" struggles with this idea that dysfunctional aspects of the existing social systems continue to exist because they fit the basic power structures which are communicated contextual in the average family. The relationship between the psycho-physical energy in children and the social implications, performances and stresses of the family create structures that "instinctively" accept certain economic regimes and just as instinctively feel that any alternatives are "too far out" to succeed.

Brian, what do you think the most widely useful, moral & humanly progress basis for a unit of money is? Gold? Agreements? Energy? Other?

Thanks, I've been...

Layman Pascal

(to receive other "Weekly Harangues" write to: pretendtomeditate@gmail.com)

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Money?

Posted January 14th, 2012 by Brian OConnell in response to UR invoked

I really enjoy your expression and agree with everything. The ideal money in my view is time credits. But is to radical at this time. But let me explain why time credits is the money of the future. How value can be measure by time credits? Individuals can still ask for what they think their service is worth, like current money, but payment does not have to be in same currency but time of service which can be converted I to time credits or just your time doing a service for payment. So it has the best of barter and medium of exchange. The other aspect is that the amount of time to produce a service can be measured, like time to get a degree and time to be certified and time of experience in the field can be shown to get to charged time credits, where a doctor gets paid more time credits per time actually doing their service compared to say a landscaper. And also how with robots and automation it can be seen that no personal time can be involved and would be a collective time credit and thus free for individuals, so inherited collective value, shared. It woils be rare to have zero personal time input for mantainance and expansion. But in time would happen. And see a base time credit given to all people for intrinsic value and survival. But this time credit is to radical for national or state level right now. So I see that currentcy needs to enter a pluralistic stage where individuals can have any currency in there accounts depending on services the banks provide. So banks compete depending on if they provide international currencies or alternative currencies the local community is using or alternative state, national, and international currencies. This move into pluralistic money competing with each other is needed now for the postmodern stage of economic development to complete and then a integral solution can happen which I have expressed already. But a third tier currency of time credits would happen out of the second tier system, keep in mind that the direct associative system of the Internet in a holoacracy software system and panarchy would already have matured. Such that the idea of central authority and state government is gone. So by the time a time currency happens globally (time currency can be enacted locally/communially anytime and is already being used) our civilization looks like star trek by the time it happens globally. And what are the chances money going pluralistic now, none. unless manes energy source comes into society it will not happen until society unfortunately regresses into a agrarian local commune with a techno internet system of elite control, where it a tribal game locally but a star wars game for the elite. How painful this would be. I hope it does not happen, but what's stopping it from going this way?

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

social de-contraction / OS pluralism

Posted January 14th, 2012 by Layman Pascal in response to Money?

I'm glad we're talking about this Brian. I'm undecided about time credits and view that as one of several options relative to a subtle existential-energetic basis for currency. However, I very much agree about the need for pluralism of currencies. This is a correlate of the perspectival pluralism which permits the emergence of integral level experience. Competition between Operating Systems is among the only established methods of evolution in the LR quadrant. When the Chinese were thinking about introducing a new economic system they "tested" it in a few regions and evaluated its success against the rest of the country.

Looking more broadly we can see that the means of spiritual development at the individual level is something like "de-contraction" -- the complexification of simple ideas, the release of condensed tensions, the opening of hearts, the expansion of consciousness, etc. Back over in the techno-economic realm we find progressive victories associated with similar de-contractive efforts. The (albet highly dubious) ceding of Imperial authority to the oligarchs in the Magna Carta did increase the vitality of its culture. It just didn't go nearly far enough. The de-contraction of voting rights from one gender, one race, etc. follows a similar pattern. The expansion of government into "three branches". The introduction of anti-monopoly legislation. This the right direction. It creates increased flexibility, traction-to-reality and energy flows.

How can it go further? Well, monopoly on currency should be illegal. Likewise copyright has to be severely limited (i.e. why does Disney get to hold a monopoly over Mickey Mouse? Why should Apple have a monopoly on Apple products?) The limits of this expansion are unknown and doubtlessly fluctuate with time. Security and incentives must still function. But generally speaking there is still a long way to go in terms of social de-contraction in order to get us functionally optimally.

And unless corporate entities (including the 'nation-states') are opened further in this sense we are going to have a pretty rocky time watching solid, reactionary power blocs try to merge into a planetary civilization.

All this definitely means we should be looking at currency-pluralism. There's just no good reason to monopolize currency except for reactionary control fear.

What does not bend, will break.

So I see that currentcy needs to enter a pluralistic stage where individuals can have any currency in there accounts depending on services the banks provide. So banks compete depending on if they provide international currencies or alternative currencies the local community is using or alternative state, national, and international currencies. This move into pluralistic money competing with each other is needed now for the postmodern stage of economic development to complete and then a integral solution can happen which I have expressed already. But a third tier currency of time credits would happen out of the second tier system, keep in mind that the direct associative system of the Internet in a holoacracy software system and panarchy would already have matured. Such that the idea of central authority and state government is gone. So by the time a time currency happens globally (time currency can be enacted locally/communially anytime and is already being used) our civilization looks like star trek by the time it happens globally. And what are the chances money going pluralistic now, none. unless manes energy source comes into society it will not happen until society unfortunately regresses into a agrarian local commune with a techno internet system of elite control, where it a tribal game locally but a star wars game for the elite. How painful this would be. I hope it does not happen, but what's stopping it from going this way?

Thanks, I've been...

Layman Pascal

(to receive other "Weekly Harangues" write to: pretendtomeditate@gmail.com)

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

The Fed & Futility of "Monetary Poiicy"

Posted February 22nd, 2012 by dslyoga in response to UR invoked

Too much said in your post to effectively cover in one response, but to your last question, the idea of fully Individuating Human Progress and Diversity would say that what ever form of money or exchange any two or more individuals agree upon for their particular needs at that particular time is the "proper" mode of exchange, be it gold, silver or seashells -- or a handshake.

It is not within the legitimate purview of any institution -- even if they call themselves a "government" -- to dictate such decisions to anyone. The only REAL purpose of centralizing the money system is to exert a degree of power and control over The People. It has NO other purpose that can be achieved by centralization and enforcement by threats of violence (the Police Power).

It is the idea that there needs to be, and implementation of, a standardized monetary unit enforced upon everyone in a society -- by threats of violence delivered via the Police Power -- that inevitably breeds corruption and mal-investment. (The fact that my spell checker does not recognize the term *malinvestment** without a hyphen is VERY telling as to the lack of economic and political understanding in our society of how these things work.)

You said, regarding the Fed:

" I think the orienting programs of their charters, the ways in which they draw their mathematical conclusions, the means by which they select employee, the methods by which they come to decisions about action -- these are they key issues which allow flourishing or corruption by at the state level and the monetary level."

From my point of view, the very existence of the Fed in any way, shape or form, the very foundational structure of it, is corrupt and anti-human from the ground up. There is NO way it can be modified or reformed -- or run by **better people* or better ideas -- to achieve a better result. The monetary system must remain totally within the Free-Enterprise process under the constraints of Common Law, which prevents it from being taken over by those who know how to manipulate a centralized monetary system. And history is full of those.

And if there is anything the last hundred years, or even back to those pre-Old Testament theorists who tried to convince the Ancient Hebrews -- a couple of thousand years ago -- to not take on a Centralized State, and not use inflationary money, has taught us, is keep The State out of our economic lives, or better yet, keep The State from existing at all. The institution of The State has destroyed far more human lives, created far more human misery, destroyed more economic output, than anything any two-bit criminal could or has come up with throughout known history.

And Ron Paul is the only one who is close enough to the Heart of the Beast to put this view across. Although he has been an advocate of a free-market gold standard, he has also said whatever the market comes up with is okay with him.

--David Scott Lynn

Better ANSWERS to the Puzzles of Posture, Pain & Dysfunction ... with a Focus on Prevention
with the DSL Method of Yoga/Bodywork/Whole Health Therapeutics
Utilizing Let-Go Yoga (Cons

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

User login

Quick Links

The Archives

Please Log in to Vote.

Integrating Panarchy and Monetary Systems

Please Log in to Vote.

UR invoked

Please Log in to Vote.

Money?

Please Log in to Vote.

social de-contraction / OS pluralism

Please Log in to Vote.

The Fed & Futility of "Monetary Poiicy"