Re: David Bohm and Dialogue - Meeting Face-to-face - Holodynamics & What

Dear Margarite,
    I'm afraid you have misunderstood my point, as you have not addressed my 
comments. First of all I questioned the feasibility of your paragraph below, 
which you didn't respond to. Secondly, it is the dominance of capitalism 
through the existing regimes/nations that I'm saying is what is fouling up 
the world, and it seems that you don't recognize or  agree that as long as 
these two "forces" exist, the degradation that they cause will continue.

The antidote that I suggest being decentralized, relatively self-sustainable, 
autonomous but not sovereign, small, mutually co-operative communities on a 
global scale, which we may or may not agree upon. Pretty much the opposite of 
what exists today.

To attain this goal, I would not suggest any kind of violent revolution, as 
historically all revolutions are inevitably betrayed, besides the fact that 
it would be violent and hugely daunting, but rather by beginning to build 
these kind of communities (i.e. self-sustainable, intentional communities, 
et.al) to be models for others both in urban and rural environments, first 
and third world.

I would hope that you would be kind enough to address the above concerns and 
comments in the hope that through a logical discussion, conclusions may be 
reached. 

Kind Regards,
Mofwoofoo Woofuaza

In a message dated 12/18/00 8:57:36 PM, ecopilgrim@juno.com writes:

<< Bagelhole@aol.com writes:

I don't wish to make myself an enemy of you, as I appreciate and agree 
with your intentions, instead I am simply questioning the "wisdom" of
your 
post.

In a message dated 12/18/00 3:30:26 PM, ecopilgrim@juno.com writes:

<< Sanity begins on the holodynamic plane. 

<For instance, this paragraph to me sounds totally unrealistic. But not
only 
that, it seems clear to me, though I could be wrong, that there will be
no 
real solutions as long as sovereign entities such as nations, gov'ts, etc
are 
allowed to exist and capitalism dominates, no matter how great
"holodynamics" 
are any such self-realization system is.>

Capitalism is a very immature response to economic needs -- as long as 
'we the people' buy into 'capitalism' as consumers (and as a viable
system) we show our own immaturity as well. 

Mofwoofoo: But I am not advocating capitalism. 
 The mature action here is to
'call the game' -- stop being 'consumers' -- by taking direct action we
begin to take our power back.  Without consumers, capitalism cannot
exist.  

This is a very simple explanation and other actions need to be taken,
e.g., legal action to dimish corporate power and the ability to exploit
poverty-sticken people in the developing world; electing response-able

Mofwoofoo: Its pretty much an oxymoron for response-able people to run for 
office or to be associated with anything as corrupt as government.
people to office in countries where this is possible, and enacting other
laws that limit the ability of corporations to exploit the enviroment, 
etc. but I hope this example gives an idea of how 'looking at the whole
dynamic of the situation' 
Mofwoofoo: I'm sure most of us are "looking at the whole dynamic of the 
situation, as this is hardly novel, but merely common sense.

can bring about another viewpoint which can
result in 'we the people getting out of the victim posture' -- Exploiters
can only exploit if they have willing victims.
Mofwoofoo: This is too simplistic, if only it were really true.
  Both victims and
exploiters are immature 'holodynes.'  
can bring about another viewpoint which can
result in 'we the people getting out of the victim posture' --\Both victims 
and
exploiters are immature 'holodynes.'    

Right now we have approximately 200 people controlling 51% of the wealth
of the world with a population of 6 million.  
Come on people -- there many more of us than there is 'them.'  How did we
get in this position?  

The next step toward maturity here is to design a system of economics
that is not exploitive 
Mofwoofoo: Again this seems simplistic. Simply, because how would you 
implement such a system. In the book Utopia, written in the 16th century, by 
Sir Thomas More, it was suggested that there should be a limit to what one 
individual could make. Can you imagine if such a law existed, how that would 
even the playing field? But it will never come to be, I would bet.
-- a return to a 'sane path.'   

marguerite 

Marguerite Hampton
Executive Director - Turtle Island Institute
EcoPilgrim@juno.com
http://tii-kokopellispirit.org