For the majority, the collective brain will still be reeling with thoughts and memories of the past. It's like starting a new relationship where all the old baggage wants to drag you back into the past. Can humanity get over this? I don't know what new concepts we can come up with that haven't been part of the past. I suppose it will be a long, long evolution instead of a rather quick revolution.
Richard Branson lead his Virgin group in a similar fashion, once a part of the business grew beyond 75 people he split it into two separate businesses. I don’t know the exact number but I think it was something like that.
I highly recommend Garreau’s Nine Nations as the basis of the overall national identity of our regrouped America. BioRegionalism - coming together out of a common environment and speaking FOR that ecological area just simply humanity’s job. “We speak I’m for the trees” (and the plains and the mountains and deserts)
Well in the sense that Belgium and France are separate. That is, an AU instead of an EU?
BUT! This would open up negotiations with Mexico and Canada also because Garreau’s Nine Nations includes ALL of N America. But he makes some great arguments that the wheat farmers of Canada have more in common with the wheat farmers of Kansas than either has in common with the coastal regions, etc.
So it’s a whole new political entity but in order for any new political entity to be born the old one has to die.
Fortunately recent history gives us ONE example: the breakup of the Soviet Union. If they could do it, so can we.
Interestingly, I went down a rabbit hole for hours this morning on the physiographic regions model of Earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physiographic_regions). It was pursuant to work I was doing on a graphic. I like this model a lot!
"Fortunately recent history gives us ONE example: the breakup of the Soviet Union. If they could do it, so can we."
—I saw that breakup with my own eyes. I know we can do it!
I often reflect back to a conversation I had with a friend/acquaintance about thirty years ago over beers in a pub. He was researching and developing theories on what he called tribalism. Which he extended to meanings beyond a traditional understanding of the word. Our free-ranging conversation cited families, extended families, ethnicities, religious, socioeconomic, academic standing, etc. And we came up with fans of a sports club also being a tribe, school spirit, little league parents/children. How natural it is for those with similar interests joining together in cause/purpose to form a 'tribe" with tribal instincts, for better and worse. While the traditional understanding of tribe is usually one of the strongest, most likely to band together to do great things and terrible things alike, even the tribal instincts of fans of a sports club are apt to do terrible things. Think about the riots in futbol stadiums where that sport is dominant.
Tribes are so natural a human organizational feature that prison officials stopped trying to fight racial divides of inmates under their supervision and encourage it to keep violence down. By elevating the baddest hombres in each race to a higher status with perks of the prison who keep their tribe's members in line. This government purportedly committed to ending racism actively encourages it in populations they have the most control over. New inmates admonished to "remember your race" if they know what's good for them while they're incarcerated, limited racial interaction in the prison yard and dining pods.
The human instinct to find tribal affinity is useful to those in positions of power and authority. Once in tribes it's easy to divide and conquer each tribe, keeping the powerful in power. And if one power center is displaced a new power center gains control of the divide and conquer apparatus.
Tribalism is strong in the Middle East, the crossroads of civilizations for thousands of years. The product of being invaded, conquered from one direction, then invaded, conquered from another direction, from all directions. They learned that to survive they must form strong tribal loyalty that comes ahead of any loyalty to a conqueror. Even those bearing gifts; they know how that story ends. They embrace a "Strong Horse" theory of loyalty, the moment a new strong horse arrives the previous one, weakened, is discarded. Osama bin Laden wrote of this, international relations author Lee Smith wrote about it two decades ago. Its survival mechanism that's in the region's DNA.
And in most all human sociological relations. The question that has challenged societies since the first nomadic human tribes into Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece and Rome, the Huns, the Mongols, all, remains. Tribal affiliations are useful for control. And they are instinctive, survival often depends on them. What's the best form of tribes, houses, crews, clans, distributed nations is the eternal question and impediment for true freedom and individual liberty. Which you ponder and try to answer with anarcho-centric concepts. I enjoy participating in your intellectual philosophical journey as I did with my old friend/acquaintance those many years ago.
And I am glad to have you with me on this journey. Thank you!
I thought about all that vis-a-vis clans especially. The clan system in Scotland no doubt helped with survival. But it also produced clan wars and kept them divided and squabbling, which allowed the English to trounce them again and again.
Can we respect the emergent-order process, while guiding ourselves and each other in beneficial directions? Can we tap into tribal instincts in order to produce positive outcomes?
Excellent exploration of organizational units. I was actually able to control for my natural distrust of organizations and hierarchies.
Then I think I succeeded! Thank you—it means a lot to me to know that.
For the majority, the collective brain will still be reeling with thoughts and memories of the past. It's like starting a new relationship where all the old baggage wants to drag you back into the past. Can humanity get over this? I don't know what new concepts we can come up with that haven't been part of the past. I suppose it will be a long, long evolution instead of a rather quick revolution.
Yes, I agree. Instant gratification is for toddlers. We will have to be patient.
But someone must start this evolution sometime. So why not us, and why not now?
Richard Branson lead his Virgin group in a similar fashion, once a part of the business grew beyond 75 people he split it into two separate businesses. I don’t know the exact number but I think it was something like that.
Seems quite sensible!
I highly recommend Garreau’s Nine Nations as the basis of the overall national identity of our regrouped America. BioRegionalism - coming together out of a common environment and speaking FOR that ecological area just simply humanity’s job. “We speak I’m for the trees” (and the plains and the mountains and deserts)
Do you (or does Garreau) envision these nations as entirely separate?
Well in the sense that Belgium and France are separate. That is, an AU instead of an EU?
BUT! This would open up negotiations with Mexico and Canada also because Garreau’s Nine Nations includes ALL of N America. But he makes some great arguments that the wheat farmers of Canada have more in common with the wheat farmers of Kansas than either has in common with the coastal regions, etc.
So it’s a whole new political entity but in order for any new political entity to be born the old one has to die.
Fortunately recent history gives us ONE example: the breakup of the Soviet Union. If they could do it, so can we.
Interestingly, I went down a rabbit hole for hours this morning on the physiographic regions model of Earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physiographic_regions). It was pursuant to work I was doing on a graphic. I like this model a lot!
"Fortunately recent history gives us ONE example: the breakup of the Soviet Union. If they could do it, so can we."
—I saw that breakup with my own eyes. I know we can do it!
I often reflect back to a conversation I had with a friend/acquaintance about thirty years ago over beers in a pub. He was researching and developing theories on what he called tribalism. Which he extended to meanings beyond a traditional understanding of the word. Our free-ranging conversation cited families, extended families, ethnicities, religious, socioeconomic, academic standing, etc. And we came up with fans of a sports club also being a tribe, school spirit, little league parents/children. How natural it is for those with similar interests joining together in cause/purpose to form a 'tribe" with tribal instincts, for better and worse. While the traditional understanding of tribe is usually one of the strongest, most likely to band together to do great things and terrible things alike, even the tribal instincts of fans of a sports club are apt to do terrible things. Think about the riots in futbol stadiums where that sport is dominant.
Tribes are so natural a human organizational feature that prison officials stopped trying to fight racial divides of inmates under their supervision and encourage it to keep violence down. By elevating the baddest hombres in each race to a higher status with perks of the prison who keep their tribe's members in line. This government purportedly committed to ending racism actively encourages it in populations they have the most control over. New inmates admonished to "remember your race" if they know what's good for them while they're incarcerated, limited racial interaction in the prison yard and dining pods.
The human instinct to find tribal affinity is useful to those in positions of power and authority. Once in tribes it's easy to divide and conquer each tribe, keeping the powerful in power. And if one power center is displaced a new power center gains control of the divide and conquer apparatus.
Tribalism is strong in the Middle East, the crossroads of civilizations for thousands of years. The product of being invaded, conquered from one direction, then invaded, conquered from another direction, from all directions. They learned that to survive they must form strong tribal loyalty that comes ahead of any loyalty to a conqueror. Even those bearing gifts; they know how that story ends. They embrace a "Strong Horse" theory of loyalty, the moment a new strong horse arrives the previous one, weakened, is discarded. Osama bin Laden wrote of this, international relations author Lee Smith wrote about it two decades ago. Its survival mechanism that's in the region's DNA.
And in most all human sociological relations. The question that has challenged societies since the first nomadic human tribes into Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece and Rome, the Huns, the Mongols, all, remains. Tribal affiliations are useful for control. And they are instinctive, survival often depends on them. What's the best form of tribes, houses, crews, clans, distributed nations is the eternal question and impediment for true freedom and individual liberty. Which you ponder and try to answer with anarcho-centric concepts. I enjoy participating in your intellectual philosophical journey as I did with my old friend/acquaintance those many years ago.
And I am glad to have you with me on this journey. Thank you!
I thought about all that vis-a-vis clans especially. The clan system in Scotland no doubt helped with survival. But it also produced clan wars and kept them divided and squabbling, which allowed the English to trounce them again and again.
Can we respect the emergent-order process, while guiding ourselves and each other in beneficial directions? Can we tap into tribal instincts in order to produce positive outcomes?
Can we be "many houses, one tribe?"
Excellent concepts and initial names Christopher! I fully agree with your wife and Patton's quotes.
My wife won several tank battles in WWII.
Oh wait, no, that was Patton.
Funny! :)