- Unity
- Empowered vs. Victim
- Co-exist
- Trust
- Freedom
- Connect
- Polycentric vs. Centralised
- Responsive vs. Absolutist.
- Sharing economy
- Transaction vs. Money based.
- Information
Although I am describing the interactions and the relationship as system, the focus is on the human component in all of this. The system must be serving, and subservient to, the human that it is serving.
In addition, in order for any human network to be successful, it needs the energy of people, not the system.
Here is an attempt to express certain values that should comprise the basis for the constitution of the Garden we wish the Tree of Life to be.
Unity
Together we stand, divided we fall
We are all expression of the One. We are unified in our basic needs. That each one of us, and all of us together need to pay more attention to the natural world, the mother who nourishes us, of which we are a part of too.
At this time, and in this space, we must gather together to support one another in sustaining our basic human needs, providing basic human services to one another, and continue to practise basic human interactions—all without fear.
Unity vs Separation.
Globalisation cannot exist in a splintered world else it will become a larger version of that which exists at present, with the consequences just being more far-reaching. If any nation detonates a nuclear device, every one of us in the whole world will suffer the consequences. If a small ogligarchy manages to gain global dominance...
No part of the natural world lives in isolation. Seeds reach distant lands borne on the winds that blow from one end of the earth to the other. Currents travel from one continent to another. The sun bathes all living creatures in its light. Only in the human world is there this separation built on social narratives that exploit our differences - the very characteristics that make us human.
Empowered vs. Victim
Golden Shadow
Instead of blaming others, or expecting someone will save us, we need to build the solution that will carry us into the future that awaits us. We know what it is we want. We need to begin to create the spaces in which we can embed this way of life.
Co-exist
Collaboration vs Competition
Rather than competing, creating division, in order to conquer and control
Cooperate, Collaborate & Coordinate to Create Community
One view of the world is a conflictual one, in which there is always an “other”, who opposes - and whom I/we am/are generally the victim(s) or victimiser(s) of. This narrative of other could be based on different gender, colour, sexual persuasion, religious or cultural belief—if one lives in this world of us and them, winner and loser, us or them, mine versus yours. Having created and demonised the other, the consequence is that this releases the perpetrator from any responsibility for his or her actions or any consequences thereafter.pfizer
However, we exist in a duality. For every “this” there is a “that”. These are on opposite ends of the spectrum in which we exist. However, they need not stand solely in opposition, but are also actually reciprocal. The relationship between the polarities, like male and female cannot be entirely oppositional in order for it to be successful and nourishing – for the relationship also contains other elements that enable two “opposites” to find complementary spaces in which they can support one another.
The collaborative relationships speak of the inherent connection that exists between you and I, or between each and every human and living thing on this planet. It does not make victims, but rather speaks to the humanity that we all share, and the innate desires for a peaceful, and nourishing way of life.
One could argue that every successful effort is collaborative.
Trust
Abundance vs. Lack
These qualities are determined by the values and beliefs upon which your life is built. There are two different attitudes. The first is that there is always something lacking in life. It is called poverty thinking. I live in a world in which the glass is always half-full, and there is never enough. I need to gather as much as I can, creating more fear, more lack in the world. Or I can live in a world of abundance, in which there is enough for all. And this requires trust, and not a trust in government or other human agencies. But trust in a purpose, in a mission that is beyond any individual's capability to comprehend. And to succeed in this goal, we need to build communities in which we are not constantly in conflict, but find more beneficial ways of dealing with from the furits of the earth, sharing one another’s gifts, and all that the blessings the world offers us.
Freedom
Choice vs. Controlled.
Control vs Facilitate
Connect
Polycentric vs. Centralised
Networked vs. Hierarchical organisations
The most efficient governance is not necessarily the top-down hierarchical structure that is omnipresent in almost all of our structures of control and governance, though for many years it seems we knew no other way to effectively organise.
Almost every efficient organisation has an effective network of some sort through which it carries out its tasks and co-ordinates its activities. The internet has shown how effective non-hierarchical networks with no apparent centralised control can be.
Central control has many flaws. The control mechanisms need to be domain specific, and any centralisation has to be clearly focussed on the goal. This form, which is highly effective, and thus highly dangerous – should only arise if it benefits the purpose of the organisation that has been tasked with dealing with a specific issue. Polycentric networks, on the other hand, have various stakeholders whose interests are represented in the network and collaborate to produce the desired outcome.
Responsive vs. Absolutist.
There is no absolute solution, nor “eternal” regulations that can deal with the complexities of the societies in which we live and their interactions. Though there should be regulations and protocols of behaviour, these must be able to adapt according to "unexpected" situations{the unexpected should be the norm, and the expected the miracle. For there are an infinite amount of incorrect responses for every correct one.}. One could call this the “human” element – mitigating circumstances – and any modern system of governance needs to have that built into its protocol—based on the principle that there is no perfect system that we can create.
There are criteria, even hard principles, that need to be upheld, but they should retain their human focus,{and the only way to do that is if the control is in the hands of humane humans - "Obey the laws, and be good!"} and be able to adapt for a specific situation. Perhaps someday we will reach perfection in these laws, but until then the system has to be dynamic enough, with a resilient enough core structure, so that it can deal with peripheral circumstances. We might be able to construct general laws, but none that can fit all situations—forever!
Sharing economy
Shared vs. Privatised.
A model is appearing in some of the major cities, powered by modern technology. It deals with what people have to share, like a car, or a room in their houses. There are some social transaction networks that are appearing that enable one to cook a couple of extra meals a day and “share” it via these emerging transaction models.
Transaction vs. Money based.
Moneyless, or money-free means that we will not be using money as we now know it, but rather a value-based mode of transaction. Crypto-currencies, combined with smart contracts, have introduced the concept of currency having value or “intelligence” beyond that of being mere “notes of intent” or “promissory notes”. One can introduce criteria that express more of the value, intent and regulations concerning a specific transaction. These can include value-based criteria that capture more of the environment in which the transaction occurred. This allows for a more dynamic expression of value that can be more specific, and may arise and be removed once the specific issue or project that is being dealt with has run its course, thereby becoming a truer measure of value.
{
After all, the idea of money is to be able to record the value of a complex transaction. We need to adopt a form of "currency" that best maps the "meaning" (via its characteristics & outcome} of the transaction, not necessarily its source and destination.
eg. One is not interested generally in the source and destination of a piece of information, unless one already knows something additional about that information or its source/destination, some characteristic of the interaction that you are interested in. For instance, one of the participants is a criminal. Or the information contained in the message is concerning a drop.
Thus I offer the suggestion that we start with mapping "energy". We do not need to abandon the current system, just add an energy equation to each transaction. Energy consists of potential (at rest) energy, and energy that does "work", i.e. it has a noticeable (measurable) effect on something.
2 axes: PE/W; Source/Destination; Desired outcome, energy used, actual outcome, energy audit.
}
Information
All information in the network will be open to anyone who wishes to see it. There might be conditions or requirements to accessing information from the archives. However, all information will be saved for any individual that needs to refer to it. This enables anyone that has a reason, to challenge an occurrence. The weight of this challenge will depend on the person’s distance from the occurrence. It will be relatively easy to trace any extraneous influences, if they exist.