"To outward appearance, the modern world was born of an anti religious movement: man becoming self-sufficient and reason supplanting belief. Our generation and the two that preceded it have heard little of but talk of the conflict between science and faith; indeed it seemed at one moment a foregone conclusion that the former was destined to take the place of the latter. ... After close on two centuries of passionate struggles, neither science nor faith has succeeded in discrediting its adversary. On the contrary, it becomes obvious that neither can develop normally without the other. And the reason is simple: the same life animates both. Neither in its impetus nor its achievements can science go to its limits without becoming tinged with mysticism and charged with faith." -- Pierre Thierry de Chardin, "The Phenomenon of Man"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

"God does not play dice with the universe." -Al E.

"Mystics understand the roots of the Tao but not its branches; Scientists understand its branches but not its roots. Science does not need mysticsim and mysticism does not need science; but man needs both." -- Fritjof Capra

The mystics explore it through meditation. The nuclear physicists explore it through experimentation and hypothesis. It's the universe as we understand it today, a "cosmic dance" of paradoxical yet unified relationships-- an organic vision brilliantly evoked by a gifted and thoughtful physicist. -blurb on back cover of The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra.

He's a liberal green feminist from The People's Republic of Berkeley, but he has some interesting things to say, from my POV. He believes in Gaia too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_theory

motherlovers.org

This would be the movie for Sci-Fi Gaia worshippers.
The CGI effects are so realistic that they had to "dumb it down" so as not too disturb audiences.

A box office bomb, but a big hit as a computer game.

Gaia loving scientists of the future save the earth
from the Military Industrial Complex and phantoms.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt173840

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...:_The_Spirits_Within

I'm the only person on the planet who liked this movie, and I'm enfatuated with the main character,
but then I don't get out very much.

Science does not need mysticism and mysticism does not need science; but man needs both."

I think that's a great quote, MM.

He believes in Gaia too

I think that model is more poetic than it is descriptive. If, say, bacteria run rampant inside a human, unless they're stopped, the human dies. We don't consider the proliferation of this bacteria a balance. But when something like that happens on earth, some type of mass extinction or just the ascendance of some kinds of animals (dinosaurs) at the expense of others, this is rather indifferent to the concept of a self-regulating Gaia. Gaia seems rather indifferent. It seems to me that the safety margin for life, or in other words the "inertia" against the extinction of all life, is provided mainly by the atmosphere and earth's active geology. Those are quite inorganic things. If that is Gaia then okay.

Gaia is one paradigm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm

Paradigms can be ideological:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology

They can lead to groupthink:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/groupthink

Sometimes they shift:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift

This is the main paradigm Fritjof Capra is concerned with:

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanistic_paradigm

Where am I going with all this? I'm not sure, but
it felt a bit like groupthink to me around here
and I was afraid to challenge it, but my evil twin made me do it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_Advocate

a_friend_of_the_devil_is_a_friend_of_mine.edu

Where am I going with all this? I'm not sure, but
it felt a bit like groupthink to me around here
and I was afraid to challenge it, but my evil twin made me do it!

Never be afraid to tell me to stuff it, MM. How am I going to learn anything unless you disagree? See, I have selfish motive. So please do outline where you think the groupthink resides and let�s critique it. The last think I want to do is parrot somebody else�s ideas unless it�s Rush, Ann or perhaps Phil.

Parroting Phil seems a reliable strategy. Sometimes
I think I'm turning into Phil. Worse things could happen. I'll see if I can pitch a curve or two, even if there's no home run, I'll try to get on base.

The thrust of Capra's work is that the physics of the first three decades of the twentieth century has
not yet worked it's way through politics, medicine, education and society. Capra is a deep ecologist and heavy into systems theory. Everthing affects everything else. I'll be working on this for awhile, and hopefully we will learn something new.

just_another_day_in_paradigm.edu

The thrust of Capra's work is that the physics of the first three decades of the twentieth century has not yet worked it's way through politics, medicine, education and society.

If the physics of the first three decades of the 20th century did work its way through those things, what would be different? What would that look like? Do you have a summary of that or a link that has a summary of that, MM?

In terms of spiral dynamics, I think Capra would be promoting more turquoise in politics and cultural life. That'll take awhile, however, as to truly embrace turquoise, one must journey up the spiral. Still, there's a lot of turqoise kinds of values being taught in our schools now, which should please Capra.

Phil,

I haven't given ANY thought to turqoise. Would you elaborate on what you see in Capra and the schools which relates to turquoise please?

The Mindwalk film treats the ideas expressed in The Turning Point, which was written a quarter century
ago, but the new paradigm is certainly cutting edge to many, including yours truly.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obi...046-1272112?v=glance

I'm very preoccupied with reaching yellow meme consciousness, and I probably cannot even see turquoise from where I am at. Oh, master Po, see that I am but a grasshopper!

turquoise_navaho_jewelry.res

Michael, see this description of the colors by Wilber and consider Capra's writings in the light of what he writes about Turquoise. The connection I was making is that the new physics incorporates and goes beyond the old, and it does seem more open to spirituality than the old. Same goes for Turquoise, which is very open to spirituality, and often inspired by quantum physics in its movement toward spirituality.

There really don't seem to be many Turquoise kinds of political movements, but some of the Green movements do express whole-earth concerns. A Turquoise political system would be something indeed. . . but first we need a few more manifestations of Yellow to put it on sure footing.

Well, at least I'm entering the top 2% of something.
It's a little weird at times, as when I am switching modes while speaking in one meme to an individual, and I know they hear the conversation which seems to contradict everthing I just said while speaking to the last person, and I just know they are thinking I am a two-faced hypocrite. - (which I am sometimes)

I can switch at the drop of a hat, and I'm not sure how this happened, but perhaps that is why I am now becoming aware of integration and holism and Capra. I have four of his books, and I'll post
quotes until his lawyer calls me.

Thank you for the link, I'll print that one and use it as a bookmark in my Capra books!

2%elite.org

Capra's systemic view of terrorism and 1960s counter culture:

http://fritjofcapra.net/articles.html

Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.

http://www.primalspirit.com/Gr...tarySurvival_art.htm

Capra arrives at many of the same conclusions from
science, biology and systems theory as Grof does from psychology. Wilber derives from both. Linking this all together might take the rest of my life, but everyone needs a hobby...

http://www.trufax.org/paradigm/paradigm.html

This is such a breath of fresh air to me, and I wanted to share about this for a long time now.

What the authors have in common with Capra is an interest in the work of Thomas Kuhn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Samuel_Kuhn

They teach philosophy and do philosophical life coaching work, and use the recovery model and much of the social/political ideas which emerged from the recovery movement. I believe that they came to
it fresh without a personal involvement in the 12 steps, but they seem to understand it quite well.

It's a long link, but someone may find it time well spent...

caritas, mm <*))))><

Brad,

Keep the quotes coming! Here's one from Allen Newell 1958:

"There are now in the world machines that think, that learn and that create. Moreover, their ability to do these things is going to increase rapidly until--in the visible future--the range of problems thay can handle will be coextensive with the range to which
the human mind has been applied."

-Fritjof Capra, The Web of Life

Keep the quotes coming! Here's one from Allen Newell 1958:

I gotta quote fer ya, MM, although I don�t think it has anything to do with the subject at hand.

quote:

Conservatism is a defense of accumulated wisdom which takes many forms: the great books, our enduring democratic and religious institutions, and even simple rules of thumb like be nice to people or never run with scissors. � Jonah Goldberg

Three cheers for conservatism! Three boos for Globalization.

http://afr.com/articles/2004/02/19/1077072774981.html

"But the signs of decline are clear, and since 1995
those signs have multiplied, building on one another, turning a confused situation into a collapse."

"Perhaps a quarter century of political reform had left the liberal elites exhausted."

"The classic Judeo-Christian ideas of reform had been converted into economic inevitabilities."

"Soon people began to notice other contradictions
in Global orthodoxy. How could the same ideology promise a planetary growth in democracy, and yet a decline in the power of the nation state? Democracy exists inside countries. Weaken the state and you weaken democracy."

"They noticed that in a mere 25 years CEO salaries
in the U.S. had gone from 39 times the pay of the average worker to 1000 times. Elsewhere, the numbers were similar."

If there is another WTO protest in Seattle, my bags are packed!

As Globalization as a near religious orthodoxy collapses, Fritjof Capra and new paradigms seem more relevant than ever...

caritas, mm <*)))))><

As Globalization as a near religious orthodoxy collapses, Fritjof Capra and new paradigms seem more relevant than ever...

I�m trying to figure out what that means in practical terms. No more Canadian bacon in our grocery stores? Will transatlantic flights be banned? Or does that simply mean the end of large corporations and that the corner mom and pop shop will be in charge of loading and offload of the huge oil tankers. No, seriously. I�d like to know what the alternative to selling things on a global scale.

"They noticed that in a mere 25 years CEO salaries
in the U.S. had gone from 39 times the pay of the average worker to 1000 times. Elsewhere, the numbers were similar."

And you must explain how the government is going to be better at regulating this than shareholders. And due to the nature of the intrusion involved, you�re going to have to show a very compelling reason why government should be involved in deciding how much CEOs should make.

You come up with a number of shortcomings or anomalies regarding how things are, MM, but what are the specific solutions that you or your brain trust of links recommends? And what is the philosophy behind such solutions?

If there is another WTO protest in Seattle, my bags are packed!

Unless you like risking life and limb, I�d recommend staying home and watching it on TV.

John Ralston Saul begins a discussion on Globalization and democracy:

http://www.abc.net.au/specials/saul/first.htm

About the WTO protests:

"It just means we're turning a corner, it's up to us to decide what that corner is going to be like, and where it's going to lead us."

"Governments are in fact the only structure of power which citizens actually have."

Then he goes on to speak of a ninteenth century,
narrow, uninteresting idea of the individual.

"It's as if we're all, as a poet said, the servants of greed."

He goes on to speak of the nature of the evil and the cowardly, fear of freedom and "the hypnotic clarity of false choices."

These statements are introductory and the purpose seems to be the breaking down of denial.

You know, the radical may adopt an idea in 1999, which becomes mainstream only six years later...

http://www.conservativebookser...ge.asp?prod_cd=c5010

If you can't even trust Disney anymore, then what is the corporate world coming to?

The nature of democracy is discussed in the next segment:

http://www.abc.net.au/specials/saul/scnd.htm

"We constructed democracy over a period of 250 years."

"If you remove power from the citizen and put it in the global arena without compensating for that power taken away from the nation, will the equivalent power for the citizen also be transferred to the international level? If you transfer that power without the power of the citizen, then you're not weakening the nation, that's really a secondary thing. You're weakening democracy."

"We've engaged in an almost unconscious form of suicide by allowing these enormously important powers to escape from our hands to the international level."

Globalization has detrimental effects on democracy
and democratic institutions, ie, the nation state.

Then in the third section, Competition and Deregulation, the failure of capitalism by it's own standards is discussed:

http://www.abc.net.au/specials/saul/third.htm

"But, actually when we look back at the record of this argument (prosperity via globalization), the practical record, we find that it has failed not acoording to some socialist critique, or even to some small 'l' liberal critique,, it's failed according to it's own critique, it's own claim of what it was going to do."

Saul is in command of "conservative capitalist" facts and statistics which bewail the "failure of capitalism by it's own terms" and the resulting disaster. "It's been disastrous for competition, disastrous for capitalism." "It's certainly not meritocracy."

This is a pretty strong critique, and I'm surprised the ABC would air it. Henry Kissinger and most Western leaders for the last thirty years
or so seem to have egg on their face, not to mention the multinationals themselves.

Those are strong but reasonable critiques, MM, and one reason why I tend to bristle when people get down on capitalism. Equating it with corporatism and globalism is the problem, imo.

Years ago, I read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand. (note the reviews below on that page -- not that snivelly Library Journal one, but what those who actually understood what the book was saying wrote about it). I think she put her finger on the heart of capitalism, which helped to demonstrate how some used their wealth to control others and the political process to become even wealthier, thus abusing some of the basic principles of capitalism itself.

I know there's a sense in which this sounds like those who say that Soviet communism was really not a good example of Marxism, but I also believe many of the capitalist excesses have been redressed -- at least in the U.S.

Re. globalism and multinational corporations -- that, too, is a mixed bag. For one thing, people in, say, Paris, don't have to buy McDonalds hamburgers if they don't like gloablism or Big Macs. . . but they do! I'm also not sure we can say that it's a totally bad thing that these corporations come into 3rd world areas; they do bring jobs, and with a bit of conscience can contribute to the improvement of areas. If their stockholders and the media hold them to this, it can make a difference. So it's a two-edged sword.

Let me just reiterate again that I think capitalism needs regulation both for the benefit of the people inside the system as well as for the health of the system itself. There are instances where capitalism can lead to monopoly (although sometimes we judge these as good and necessary) and thus a constricting of the whole idea of the free market. There are other abuses that can happen as well. But with that said�

quote:

"If you remove power from the citizen and put it in the global arena without compensating for that power taken away from the nation, will the equivalent power for the citizen also be transferred to the international level? If you transfer that power without the power of the citizen, then you're not weakening the nation, that's really a secondary thing. You're weakening democracy."

I think the gist of that statement by Saul puts things somewhat in perspective. It shows a clear paradigmatic dividing line, I think. It shows a bias towards viewing the world with government as the center of life rather than the center of life being commerce. Calvin Coolidge said "The business of America is business." And Patrick Henry said "Give me liberty or give me death," so there's a role for both, certainly. (And coming from a political family I understand how politics and government itself can be life for some�perhaps just as government dependency for others can be life, such as it is, as in New Orleans.) But surely the early colonists very much viewed their liberty as the right to conduct their lives with a minimum of interference so that they could proceed with the point of life which was to raise a family, provide for that family through industry, and to please God. Government's role was to secure that liberty so that these ends could be achieved.

But Saul seems to think that unless something is somehow empowering government that it doesn't belong. He seems to view corporations (or, I suppose, any entity except government that does business globally) as somehow sitting outside of some preferred space or order. And that betrays his heavy bias towards government and either a bias against business or a severe lack of understand of how it works. Corporations, no matter where their headquarters are based, have factories, offices, and shareholders all over the world and thus the profits and benefits of that business are dispersed around the world markets as well. It seems to disturb Saul that, say, a particular business isn't 100% bound to its country of origin. He somehow sees that as sucking power but that sucks power only from government, not people. He's seeing things only through a very narrow lens of government control. As it says in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed�

When government becomes the raison d'etre, when it becomes so big and we become so dependent on it (like an addiction�a control addiction), then we quite naturally start to believe that we live our lives in order to support it and not to fulfill our own creative spirits. We forget that the one is meant to serve the other and not the other way around.

Phil said: I think she put her finger on the heart of capitalism, which helped to demonstrate how some used their wealth to control others and the political process to become even wealthier, thus abusing some of the basic principles of capitalism itself.

I think that's a great point. I'm sort of bouncing some of the below off of that even if I don't seem to address it directly.

Speaking of books that do a great job of showing the moral basis of capitalism, one of these days I'm going to have to break down and read The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism by Michael Novak. This is supposedly an almost definitive work on the subject, although surely more people have heard of Ayn Rand than of Mr. Novak. (I can not explain my affinity for Catholic thinkers, but there it is.)

One of those reviews of the Rand books mentions a book by Brand Blanshard titled Reason and Goodness. I've never heard of it but wondered if anyone else had read it.

A reviewer of Rand's books says:

quote:

But in political theory, she was on firm ground -- and she knew it. And in this collection of essays she is at her best, arguing that the only proper function of government is the protection of individual rights, that individual rights are the only kind there are, that apparent failures of the free market are actually failures of the _government_ to restrict itself to its proper role, and generally, that capitalism is the only economic system fully consonant with man's nature as a value-seeking agent who survives and thrives through the application of reason to reality.

I�m still astonished by the quality of reviews that appear on Amazon.com. I agree that capitalism is the only economic system that is fully consonant with man's nature as a value-seeking agent (among other motivations, I suppose), but, and I think MM's point of view touches on this (I'm guessing), industry and business are not the only values that we seek and I think those who criticize (or downright despise) capitalism suppose that all capitalists are only about the accumulation of material goods and that this necessarily comes at the expense of more "spiritual" or community values. I think that sometimes, particularly as individuals if we get our priorities out of whack, this is certainly the case. But the reverse has been tried before many times, to put the centrality of community and social structure at the pinnacle of human life and to submit all other things to them. That's socialism and Communism in a nutshell. The bias must, first and foremost, be to honoring and accepting the life of the individual. If excessive individualism (aka "anarchy") is a threat to community (and it is), it is because it is a threat to the individual himself and his or her ability to be free. A certain amount of social structure and community is absolutely necessary in order to not only secure one's freedoms but to create an environment in which they can be enjoyed. There's very little desirable freedom, even in an anarchic "Lord of the Flies" scenario. One is simply a pawn of circumstances and spends most of one's time on more instinctual survival issues. Surely freedom is first, and foremost, our ability to secure life, but I think freedom, at least as we regard it in the west, is also our ability to secure an environment in which industry, property, individual achievement, art, love and humans relationships (both personal and civic) can flourish, for it is quite true that, technically, we are perhaps most free when there is no law. But who wants that kind of freedom? Perhaps only criminals. And, of course, our larger social structures are, for sure, ends in themselves for we are inherently a social species. We are not hermits by nature (well, not most of us). But I think the bias has to be to the individual because supporting the individual by its very nature supports community because it takes free individuals to form any kind of community that is worth a damn in which to live. But if one starts out with a community structure in mind as the entire point of life then the individual is necessarily suffocated because we have put the cart in front of the horse, so to speak.

But I think I do understand the angst of those for whom, for a variety of reasons (not the least of which is that we may be lousy at capitalism) feel swamped by this seeming focus on, and priority of, the free market. Surely we all know that money can't buy happiness and that there is a spiritual nature of life. And I do recognize that for some people community is not just a sideline, it is everything. It is the reason for life�for better and for worse. And for others, the reason for living is industry and wealth accumulation�for better and for worse. I think both orientations need to be recognized and both need to be conscious of stepping on the other's toes, but it is also incumbent on those for whom "higher" things are more important than the material to see that the implicit freedom in the free market is supportive of a free community and that the reverse is not always, if ever, the case.

Frankly, I don�t like capitalism. That is to say, I�m not a good one. If it were merely a game of survival of the fittest then I would have likely perished decades ago. Fortunately capitalism is much more forgiving than nature. It produces such abundance that one can even make a decent living off the scraps. I simply have to defend a system that allows one to be incompetent and yet make a good living. It�s so productive a system that people can even make a decent living without working, but that�s an economic living and not much of a spiritual one. People need a sense of purpose and accomplishment. They need self-esteem to some extent.

But I don�t think the material and the spiritual are necessarily at odds with each other. In fact, this may not even be a dichotomy. For without the very material sustenance of our bodies any spiritual considerations (at least on this earth) are moot. I think a more fundamental division, a division that is perhaps real and that perhaps explains at least some of our differences of opinion regarding capitalism, is the dichotomy between image and humility. And let me best define what I mean by that by referring to one of my favorite movies, Young Frankenstein.

There�s a scene early in the movie where Madeline Kahn and Gene Wilder are saying goodbye to each other at the train station. If you haven�t seen this movie, or don�t remember this scene, then you�re just going to have to run out right now and rent it. Wilder�s character is trying his hardest to show some affection to Ms. Kahn�s character in his gesture of saying good-bye but she is constantly spurning his attempted displays at affection. When he tries to kiss her she objects because her lipstick might get smeared. When he tries to hold her hand she objects because her freshly painted nails might get smudged. And on and on. Finally she relents to sort of barely and briefly touching elbows with him. She�s so obsessively concerned with her appearance that when Wilders character, at the very end of this scene, blows her a kiss from the steps of the train, she ducks.

I think spirituality is, in large part, a cultivation of our sense of humility. It�s about lowering one�s self. Letting the air out a bit. Being concerned more with substance than style. Capitalism can, of course, nurture both aspects of life. There are, after all, tons of writers on the free market offering books that try to tell you how to do just that, to cite just one example. But I think, and unfairly so, all the ills of society tend to get dumped on capitalism. People think the only way to be free of the superficial or the material is to get rid of the free market but history shows us that the superficial and the material will just as readily (and with much greater harm) take root in the alternatives to a free market. Luckily the very existence of the free market means that there is freedom to ignore most of the material excesses of that market. The reverse is not true of other forms of economic, political, or social systems that try to take the place of the free market. By definition, when you dispense with the free market there is less freedom. In such alternate systems, those in power must create the illusion of freedom, which all people still yearn for and thus, inevitably, comes the Orwellian language and the twisting of ideas and the denying of obvious realities � similar to what you see on a typical college campus. One of the favorite propaganda lines is that those who desire material wealth are slaves to such desire. And then they will proceed to try to make tyranny sound good, healthy and spiritual. This is especially useful because, inevitably, these alternative systems will strangle the wealth-producing machinery and they�ll have to make people feel better about having less. (Cuba would be a typical example of this.) And although we individually may desire the material to unhealthy degrees, it is that freedom to be able to do so that defines a good, humane and moral system.

If I go by David Hawkins, the calbrated level of truth of Ayn Rand is 400, The 700 Club also at 400 and the Iroquoi Confederacy at 399, then no corporation is up to that level yet. Wal-Mart is the highest at 365, higher than their detractors, the Cultural Creatives and the Democratic Party at 335 and 310, respectively. Room to grow, methinks.
----------------------------------------------------
Saul exposes the man behind the curtain as merely a capitalist in drag, and certainly not The Great and Powerful Oz:

http://www.abc.net.au/specials/saul/fourth.htm

"After all, the transnationals are run by technocrats, bureaucrats, managers, employees. These people don't have any shares, they don't risk anything."

"That's not exactly what Carnegie or Rockefeller meant by capitalism, it's called really lazy burocracy and big and expensive, and they're not owned in a capitalistic manner."

On pension funds:

"They're sort of like large icebergs floating around the oceans of the world bumping up against countries and doing damage to them, without any particular direction, no particular agenda, just the agenda of getting bigger and bigger, and providing retirement to this very large burocracy
which sits on top of the iceberg melting it a bit."

He then compares them to draculas suching the creativity, effort and R&D efforts out of the real capitalists and the tremendous damage of such "abortions" of capitalism.