A Narrative Strategy for Changing the Story of Global Development
A course is now being set for the next 15 years of global economic development. As the Millennium Development Goals come to an end, the United Nations will officially adopt their replacement — the Sustainable Development Goals — in September of this year. After conducting a detailed frame analysis of these SDGs we have pinpointed a set of weak links in the logic that can be targeted to help humanity make the transition to a truly sustainable world.
We have set ourselves on a path to reframe the key narratives of economic progress — using the Sustainable Development Goals as a “historic moment” where a successful intervention has the potential to reach larger audiences. This will require that we work seamlessly as a team with a shared understanding of what we are attempting to do and how we are going about it.
/TheRules has been built on a body of research in two key areas: (1) Political analysis of economic history that reveals the structural causes of poverty and inequality. And (2) linguistic analysis of the cultural patterns that keep these structural causes hidden from view such that they are not adequately addressed.
Our intervention is to open up the mental space for inquiry among development professionals and change agents working to address systemic threats to humanity.
The strategy for doing this has two parts:
- Weaken the core logic of development-as-usual by challenging its assumptions and revealing covert, unpopular agendas.
- Ask three questions that are designed to initiate people on a learning journey that reveals the structural causes of poverty and inequality — thus opening up the conversation landscape to a new set of stories that give meaning to these emergent understandings.
This is built on a Theory of Change informed by the science of cultural evolution, which has observed that:
People live within stories that make sense of their social world. These stories become entrenched as institutional structures and practices, making them difficult to dislodge and change. Telling a “better story” is therefore a process of making the dominant stories less coherent and more difficult to understand, which opens up space for new meanings to fill in where they have broken down. Our theory of change is to challenge the logic of the problematic narratives while facilitating a learning process that helps people craft their own new stories that make sense of the knowledge and insights gained along the way.
We will “hack” the SDG discourse by asking three questions (listed below). These questions will be delivered in multiple forms — a series of blog articles written by our team and allies closely aligned with our mission; short videos posted to the web that challenge the dominant narrative; and a set of infographics that reveal key empirical findings about the structural causes of poverty and inequality.
Our challenge is to unleash these waves of potential conversation in a synergistic manner. This is why we need to articulate our narrative strategy as clearly as possible.
First, the three questions:
How Is Poverty Created?
Where do poverty and inequality come from? What is the detailed history of past actions and policies that contributed to their rapid ascent in the modern era? When were these patterns accelerated and by whom?
Who’s Developing Whom?
The story of development is often assumed or unstated. What is the role of colonialism in the early stages of Western development? How did the geographic distribution of wealth inequality come into being? What are the functional roles of foreign aid, trade agreements, debt service, and tax evasion in the process of development? And most importantly, who gains and who loses along the way?
Why Is Growth The Only Answer?
The mantra that “growth is good” has been repeated so often that it has the feel of common sense. Yet we know that GDP rises every time a bomb drops or disaster strikes. Growth, as defined up till now, is more nuanced and complex than this mantra would have us believe. Why must the sole measure of progress be growth (measured in monetary terms)? Who benefits from this story? What alternative stories might be told?
We will use these questions as organising principles in our blog articles. They are woven into the infographics and web videos. And we have seen early evidence of their power in articles written earlier this year.
Outlining A “Script” for Our September Pulse
The SDG Framework will be officially adopted in late September, creating a media window when lots of people will be talking about them for a short period of time. We want our ideas to go viral — as a “pulse” or crescendoing wave of dialogue where people share our content and create their own in response to what we are sharing.
This is where we need to organise ourselves for synergistic action. We’ll need a script that we can follow to operate independently while ensuring that we support each other’s efforts in a manner that creates resonance across the landscape of conversations.
The script is our game plan. It is how we want things to play out. Just like in a theatrical play, the script is what we follow to know what the character roles are and how their behaviour is prescribed. It needs to be very simple and easy to use so we “know our proper role” for the settings we find ourselves in.
The play-by-play reality of this pulse is going to get messy. There will be waves of internet memes (think of #CecilTheLion from a few weeks ago) that cannot be predicted ahead of time. People will talk about and share whatever is creating synchronicity in the moment. Which means we need to be agile and able to improvise without losing sight of our end game.
That is the purpose of this script. It will tell us how to act as we improvise in different settings. Here’s an outline for what it might look like:
There will be opponents (people who advocate for and promote counter narratives). Some of them will be coordinating with each other and have substantial financial resources at their disposal for marketing and promotions. We don’t have large resources, which means we will have to use guerrilla tactics and asymmetrical manoeuvres that mobilise our opponents to respond in ways that turn their size against them. Our game plan in these contexts is to be the mosquito that agitates the elephant.
There will be NGO dissidents (people who work within the system, yet are frustrated because they know it is broken). We have a group of them that we are working with directly, but many more will remain hidden to us. These people are our hidden allies. We won’t know where they are or how many of them that might step up as internal saboteurs of the standard narrative. We must embrace this ignorance and “fly blind with full knowledge that our vision is obscured”. Our game plan in these contexts is to provide narrative ammunition they can pick up and use with ease, wherever they are.
There will be concerned citizens (people who are generally aware of the problems but not formally engaged in addressing them). These people are distracted and filled with daily concerns of their own. They may be suffering from information overload or feeling powerless in the face of such huge problems. We must embrace their lived experience and honour it with humility and the respect it deserves. Our game plan in these contexts is to provide insights that make them feel more hopeful and empowered that something can be done.
In each case, the script we follow is a strategic mode of engagement. It is easy to understand and can be monitored by other members of our team. When one of us enters the discourse we will all be able to tell if they are following the game plans outlined here.
Unpacking the Harmful Narratives
Much can be said about the harmful narratives we are countering. Indeed, entire libraries of books and articles have been written about them. Our purpose here is not to be comprehensive. Rather it is to be focused on leverage points — like the Aikido master who knows just where and when to apply pressure to create a pivot and throw their opponent to the ground.
The Great Lie of Human Progress
A key battleground will be to challenge the “feel good story” of progress, which tells us that poverty is going down, wealth is increasing, and the world is like a car speeding along a well maintained highway toward Techno-Utopia. We have already seen how this has played out. It masks the chronic problems of our time and hides the culprits who are responsible for gaming the system in their favour.
We can challenge this story with killer statistics and critiques of the logic claiming that the secret ingredient to cure all ills is “economic growth”. This is where we show how statistical manipulation has been used to paint a false picture, how things really are getting worse (even though there has been authentic progress on several fronts), and that more of the same is a recipe for disaster.
Need to Question the Fundamentals
Our central critique is that the SDG’s have been framed in a way that removes all discussion of political agendas. Nothing is said about corporate power. Nowhere is the history of poverty creation (or ecological destruction) given its due as one set of people taking advantage of unilateral power to conquer and steal from other groups of people. Structural causes — the rules-of-play that create poverty and environmental harm — are left out of the conversation.
We can challenge this story by asking critical questions. Reminding people about the structures and history of exploitation. Articulating that a great deal is known about how these problems were caused, so it is possible to actually solve them. But only if we focus on the fundamentals.
Neoliberal Capitalism Is Not Descended From God
The notion that capitalism is the end game, the utopian solution for economies around the world, something we must assume as given and unchanging is naively and dangerously ignorant of history. Hegemonies and paradigms come and go. They have lifetimes. There are discernible patterns of incubation, early growth, maturity, and decay.
We need to understand this if we are to tell a compelling story about the end of capitalism. We can pose historical contexts and begin inquiries. Did the Roman elites think their empire would last forever? What kinds of delusions held sway among the Egyptian pharaohs just before their empire collapsed into oblivion? Why is it so difficult to understand Chinese history? Because there were wave after wave of dynastic orders each rising and falling across the span of deep time.
Our stories can remind people to think with historicity, to remember that to everything there is a season. We can note the increasing number and diversity of commentators who point out that corporate capitalism is subject to evolution (just as all of humanity is — evolution isn’t done, it is still happening).
We see voices among the elites (Paul Mason, Jeremy Rifkin, and others) who paint a picture of capitalism being so successful at wealth extraction that its days are becoming limited. It is literally too good at what it does and is driving productive processes toward “zero marginal cost” where profit-seeking is no longer possible. We see grassroots movements and social uprisings all over the world because the system of today builds its towers of opulence on the backs of the working poor. And we see that human population growth (combined with technological advances) has “made the Earth full” and we simply cannot grow much further before collapse becomes inevitable.
The laws of physics, biology, and economics are all pointing the way to a post-capitalist world. Neoliberal capitalism is a brief period of rapid growth, soon to be followed by collapse and decay — like the cancerous tissue that it actually is. We can tell this story and challenge the hegemony of 20th Century capitalism while calling for the paradigm to emerge that replaces it.
The Moral High Ground of “Greed Is Good”
This story, that rational self-interest is the only and best way to create wealth, is so full of holes that it only exists today because of the power inherent in shadow narratives. It is so vacuous that it can be all around us, lightly touching everything even though it has very little real substance.
We can point out that happiness and fulfilment are not the same as material accumulation. That those who hoard the most are not role-models, they are suffering from a sickness spawned in their constitutional insecurities. That the best way to create and maintain social good is by managing the commons — a set of criteria for collective governance that won Elinor Ostrom the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2009.
Our inquiry here is into the nature of human nature itself. What kind of creature are we? How does this selfish trait fit within the bigger picture of our profoundly social and moral nature? What kind of future do we truly want? Is it one built on inequality through exploitation? Or is it one built on shared visions and collective effort?
Our Strategy — Inquiries That Birth New Stories
In closing, our narrative strategy is not to “tell a better story.” It is to facilitate inquiry and learning by “asking better questions.” We know that people don’t want to be told what to do. They want to be part of creating something better.
We will ask our three questions — using the multi-media forms listed at the beginning of this brief — and do so with the script that outlines our game plan for engaging with different types of players in this conversation. Our measure of success will be the extent to which other people are asking the same questions we are and coming to similar conclusions. Even better will be if they uncover new insights and find better ways to move forward than we could have done on our own.
We know that we don’t know the best way to transform our civilization in the next few decades. We also know that a small group like /TheRules can make impacts much larger than our size by holding tight to the spiritual integrity of humble inquiry for the truth. As we role-model this behavior in our own actions, we just might be of service to others as they make their own inquiries on these, the most important issues of our time.
Onward.
I’m a filmmaker interested in social change.
Can you please contact me to explore how we can work together?
Thanks.
Jay
Hello Jay,
Let’s connect and talk. 😉
Easiest way is to friend me on Facebook.
Best,
Joe
Charles Fourier (1772 – 1837) was a philosopher and utopian socialist
Frenchman Charles Fourier (1772 – 1837) was a philosopher and utopian socialist. It was Fourier who coined the word feminism. He was a powerful advocate of the importance of community and the Communards of the Paris Commune were greatly influenced by his ideas.
Fourier was insistent that cooperation was the secret of a healthy society and would radically improve the productivity levels of workers, each of whom would be rewarded in direct proportion to their contribution (i.e. hard work would be incentivised).
Fourier asserted that poverty was the cause of most of the ills of society, hence there must be a decent minimum wage for everyone, including those unable to work. This is perhaps the first appearance of the “basic income” doctrine – everyone in society to have a guaranteed amount of money to live on – although it was assumed that anyone who could work would work and no one would choose to opt out and simply take the money (if they were neither ill nor unemployed against their will).
Fourier wanted to liberate every human being – every man, woman, and child – and he regarded liberation as having two primary aspects: intelligence, nourished by education, and joy, nourished by the healthy expression of human passion. Everywhere, he saw intelligence and joy under attack. Education for the vast majority of people remained rudimentary and religion continually constrained all joyful activities. Work always undermined joy, so he wanted to crack the secret of turning work into play.
People who love what they do will invest far more time and care into it than those who hate their work. They will do a far better job and be enormously more productive. They will feel fulfilled, contented, at one with their work, with how they use their time. The most depressing thing is to be alienated from how you spend your time because that’s what constitutes your life. To love life, you must love how you spend your time, and you never will if you’re trapped in a job you hate and you’re only doing it because you have no alternative. That makes you a slave, and there’s nothing worse than that. People and work must be harmonised. The State should find what people like doing and give them jobs that involve that activity, in the company of others who enjoy it too. Work should be the centrepiece of a joyful life, not the thing that people flee from. Most people spend their lives dreaming of their free time and of the “weekend” when work mercifully stops for 48 precious hours. So many people are driven by this permanent Sisyphean treadmill of work, play, work, play, ad infinitum. Play takes on a kind of insane, desperate character with many pumping themselves full of drugs and alcohol to numb the pain of their lives. Precious few use their spare time to dig their escape tunnel from their prison camp. They never get out.
Life can be good only when work and play coincide – you love what you do to earn your living. Soccer players are immensely envied because they relish what they do, get paid a fortune for it and receive endless adulation and all the finest things in life because of it. Most soccer players are morons, but, hey, you can’t have everything, can you?
Fourier was a zealous proponent of a New World Order based on harmonious collaboration.
The Phalanx Model of the World
“Phalanstery” (also called phalanx): a socialist community as planned by Charles Fourier; any communal association; the buildings housing such a community; a grand hotel-cum-monastery.
Origin: French phalanstère (phalange (phalanx) + (mona)stère, monastery).
Fourier’s utopian vision was of a world organised into self-sufficient phalanges (phalanxes), each consisting of about 1,600 people sharing common buildings (phalansteries) – very much like modern university campus halls of residence – and working about 5,000 acres of land to grow the foodstuffs for the community (i.e. it was designed to integrate urban and rural features). Educational facilities were to be provided, along with workshops for handicrafts. Regular entertainment would be laid on and everything would be rationally organised to provide a happy and harmonious social life. Those doing the most menial, unpleasant tasks or the most challenging and demanding, were to be paid the most from the commonwealth, while those doing the easiest and most pleasant jobs would be paid the least.
The phalanges were to be linked into suitable cooperative groups and finally into a great federation. Theoretically, each phalange could be self-governing with its own unique character, like an ancient Greek city-state, or a whole group might agree to have a common government. This model is supremely flexible. It is the political equivalent of atoms and molecules in chemistry. The basic political atom is the phalange and these atoms can be joined to create molecules of different sizes. Is this not an inherently better system than a one-size-fits-all democracy with a single centralized government? It offers far more freedom, choice, flexibility and dynamism and can accommodate on an equitable basis radically different approaches to life. Phalanges that have different outlooks can ignore each other while having friendly relations with those on a similar wavelength.
Basically, everyone in the world can have a bespoke political and social system if they can find 1,600 other similarly minded people.
Is this not the future? Is this not how the world should be, a world of choice and liberty? Imagine a whole world where the family square box (house) model of the world is abolished and is instead replaced by a phalange model where each phalanstery resembles a campus university, with educational facilities at its core. There would also be many bespoke workshops for hi-tech companies, design companies, and so forth. Each phalanstery would have a medical facility, and each group of phalansteries would have a hospital. There would be shared entertainment complexes and shopping areas.
With this basic model, we would have the building blocks to create bespoke societies and city-states. Everyone would be able to have their own utopia where they are surrounded by those who share their values. There wouldn’t be a capitalist corporation in sight, nor any bank “too big to fail”, nor any irrational market.
Fourier dreamt that there would be millions of these phalanxes all around the world, loosely ruled by a world omniarch (“ruler of all”), or a World Congress of Phalanxes.
Fourier, an ardent feminist and advocate of equal rights for women, believed that the traditional family home oppressed women and that they would be much freer within a community, supported by many other women. He considered that all important jobs should be open to women and men on an equal basis and aptitude alone should decide who was given the job. He was keen to speak of women as individuals rather than as appendages of men. What he saw of marriage so horrified him that he himself never married.
http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/The-Final-Curtain(2535255).htm
Video ‘The Phalanstery Commune’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpO–xx6nuY
Hey Nick,
Thank you for sharing the ideas of Charles Fourier (hearing his name makes me think of Joseph Fourier, the mathematician). 😉
I love that he so carefully articulated his vision for social utopia. The challenge of course is that most utopias are built on assumptions that are flawed or incomplete in some way. In this case, it seems that one of the problems will be the attempt to create a “rational” society around Enlightenment ideals that are incompatible with human nature. That said it is very important to explore utopian ideas and learn what we can from them.
Just curious, do you know that the Neoliberal movement grew around a well grounded fear of utopian socialist thinking? They took their critiques way too far and came to disastrous “capitalist utopian” conclusions of their own… but it was Friedrich Hayek’s book The Road to Serfdom that set the whole Neoliberal enterprise in motion — a critique of centralized governments based on his observations as an Austrian watching the rise of the First, Second, and Third Reich in Germany all through open, democratic processes. The Nazi vision of utopia was horrible (and disastrous). It was also a rather pernicious and totalitarian version of socialism.
Getting back to what I love about Charle’s Fourier’s ideas, the scientific research findings on societal well-being are broadly supportive of what he described in his utopian vision — in the sense that cultivation of trust, cooperation, altruism (or “prosocial tendencies” for short) are all contextual factors that reinforce conditions of personal and social well-being. A great article on this topic can be found here:
Behavioral Science May Prove to Be Our Most Important Science
Curious what you think.
Best,
Joe
I FOUND MY TRIBE. How do we collaborate? How can I help? I have felt like John the Baptist…like the voice that echoes in the desert. I stick out everywhere, because people don’t question the fundamentals of poverty creation, nor do they want to take a look at themselves as part of the system that perpetuates gross inequality in a global scale. Here is my presentation from a year ago – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQyifYFs0IQ
Let’s talk. Please!
Dear Francesca,
I am watching your talk now… LOVE it. 😉
Totally with you that the “open everything” hacker-maker approach, leap-frogging with digital communication technology can transform the global system and dismantle the Poverty Creation Industry. Reaching out to you via email for a chat!
So pleased we’ve found each other,
Joe
Many congratulations
Everyone in this society talk about the economical view about the world. If want to make our environment eco-friendly then we have to work as a unit in this world. Only the collective progress of the people will make our society beautiful. British people are also working for this purpose and in my opinion it’s good essay.britishessays
VIDA Y EVOLUCION.
EL CEREBRO:
Como a crecido el cerebro humano tantisimo comparado con el de nuestros primos chimpances.Los cientificos dicen que fue porque al andar de pie teniamos las manos libres con las que haciamos herramientas y esa relacion del cerebro y la fabricacion de herramientas cada vez mas complejas hizo que nuestro cerebro creciera para poder evolucionar en esa fabricacion.
Yo soy un manitas creativo y nunca e fabricado nada andando necesito estar parado,depie o sentado si es posible,si yo pudiera trabajar con cuatro manos como los chimpances seria un jenio,si fuera cierta la teoria cientifica los chimpances tendrian el doble de cabeza puesto que tendrian cuatro manos para trabajar.
A los chimpances le a crecido el cerebro 100 Cm3,los cientificos dicen que por su gran empatisacion,a nosotros nos a crecido 1000 Cm3,podria ser tambien por nuestra forma de empatisar,aunque parece que no nos diferenciamos mucho, espresion facial,acicalamiento,gritos,despiojamiento.etc.
Cuando nos pusimos de pie,nos bajo la laringe facilitandonos una nueba forma de empatisar la VOZ, esta llena de senzaciones y emociones,que por medio de sus tonos altos y bajos,diferentes melodias etc.Nuestro sistema genetico a tenido que crear cerebros cada vez mallores para poder expresar y percivir esa empatisacion cada vez mas complja de los hominidos.
EMPATISAR:interrelacion grupal por medio de sensaciones y emociones,mientras mas complejas sensaciones necesitamos un cerebro mas complejo para interpretarlas.
El lenguaje de la naturaleza,de la vida es la empatia,no tiene significado como nuestro lenguaje astracto,pero se basa en la verdad,cada uno espresa lo que siente por dentro y de esa forma todos savemos de todos y el grupo se fortalece, se compenetra y unifica.Por ejemplo si recolectamos aunque no nos veamos si escucho la voz de algien se que por ese lugar no me atacara directamente una fiera,se si esa persona es joven o bieja,se si quiere sexso o no,si se siente bien o mal etc,en algun momento usariamos la voz conjuntamente para mayor compenetracion y union grupal,tambien para asustar algun carnivoro y quitarle su comida o para defendernos de un ataque.De esta forma evolucionamos por millones de años,hasta que adquirimos el lenguaje astracto con su conciencia de si hace unos 150000 mil años.
Desde joven e intentado imaginarme o sentir ese tiempo donde teniamos un cerebro como el de ahora pero sin lenguaje,sin conciencia de si,me decia quiero volver a ser o sentir como un animal,pero no consigo dejar de ser una persona.Es tan dificil imaginar sin un punto de referiencia,solo puedo usar al chimpances como referencia,pero solo le a crecido 100Cm3 y a nosotros 1000- o- 1300Cm3 si contamos a los neardentales,por el otro lado podria usar a los recolectores y cazadores modernos pero tienen lenguaje y conciencia,son como nosotros,solo una cultura menor y menos dinero o poder.
Hace tiempo viviendo en grupo nos reuniamos alrrededor del fuego y ablabamos de temas importantes pero en ingles que yo no entendia luego algien me traducia,un dia le pedi que no me tradusca porque yo me montaba una pelicula con las espresiones,voces,intensiones,espectatibas etc esa pelicula me llenaba el corason y me hacia sentir muy bien,pero en el momento que me traducia se me baciaba el corazon y dejaba de sentirme asi,esa pelicula es lo mas aprosimado que puedo imaginar sobre ese tiempo paradisiaco.
Una vez vi un youtube donde a un indigena en la selva le ataca un leopardo y un perrito de solo 30 cm ladrando asusta al leopardo que sale hullendo,que podriamos hacer nosotros con nuestra voz y un cerebro tn grande.
La VOZ espresa la verdad que viene de dentro,el lenguage astracto espresa la intencion manipulando la verdad en venefisio propio.
La voz puede nombrar,poner nombre no es lenguaje astrapto,es un sonido que impacta emocionalmente y hace reasionar similarmente a los componentes de un mismo grupo cultural,muchos animales en especial mamiferos lo usan para una empatisacion mas compleja.
CONCIENCIA:
Cuando la ciencia habla de conciencia lo complica mucho dividiendola en conciente,inconciente,preconciente,conciencia de si mismo etc.Dice que la mente del hombre funciona un 95% inconciente y un5% conciente,eso quiere decir que toda la naturaleza,el sistema genetico, es inconciente y solo un pequeño trozo de nuestra mente es conciente.No sera que la naturaleza y el sistema genetico son concientes y que la mente humana tiene un 5% de inconciente o conciente enfermo o conciencia manipulativa-maquiabelica, con la que destrulle a la naturaleza que es nuestra propia vida.
Conciencia:es el modo en que se expresa y percive el sistema genetico por medio del cuerpo y cerebro que a creado y dirige.Evoluciona en su relacion con el medio aprendiendo por esperiencia o imitacion,a eso que aprende se le llama cultura.Los cientificos dicen que la cultura es otra forma de vida no biologica su sistema genetico parece ser pura informacion sin codificar pero nace,evoluciona,se reproduce y muere.Dicen que se parece a un virus porque necesita de un ser eucariota y con cerebro para vivir y reproducirse.Creo que es el parasito mas maravilloso y endogeno de toda la naturaleza,alludando al sistema genetico y su conciencia a evolucionar rapido y armoniosamente.
Las selulas se comunican entre ellas de muchas manaras, las neuronas parecen que lo hacen electricamente, toda esa interrelacion depende de las sensaciones-emociones que surjen en la relacion del cuerpo con el medio y otros cuerpos.el sistema genetico se espresa y percive dependiendo de esas sensaciones-emociones:lenguaje de la naturaleza,de nuestra vida.La cultura de alguna forma se pega o acompaña a esas sensaciones cooperando con el S.genetico,por eso la cultura es un virus super endogeno,que evolucionando ella alluda a evolucionar al S.genetico de su anfitrion.
Lei en un libro de ciencias:La cultura llego a hacerse tan sofisticada en el cerebro humano que un dia el hombre adquirio conciencia de si mismo y desde ese momento se separo del resto de la naturaleza.Una frase muy vonita,pero yo creo que el hombre es inconciente,ni siquiera se conoce a si mismo,el unico animal que no save quien es.Ademas ¿ quien a adquirido conciencia, su verdadera vida el S genetico:eso va en automatico no puede tener conciencia, o el cuerpo-cerebro que son maquinas de mantenimiento y reproduccion dirigida por el S genetico, tampoco.No sera que la cultua(ser vivo)que avita nuestro cerebro se a hecho tan sofisticada que a adquirido conciencia de si misma por medio del lenguage astracto que ella a construido.Se a hecho tan sofisticada que a puesto un centro horganisativo de su informacion en nuestro cerebro al que nos hemos identificado de tal modo que le llamamos(YO).
La cultura siendo el parasito mas endogeno de la naturaleza en el cerebro humano por medio del lenguage a mutado a conciente de si misma haciendose patogeno y nosotros infectados nos separamos del resto de la naturaleza, esplotandola y casi estingiendola sin comprender que tiene nuestro S genetico que todos somos UNO.La cultura evoluciona rapidisimamente a costa de nosotros que involucionamos para adaptarnos mejor a su evolucion,ya no coopera con nuestro S genetico,solo le interesa su evolucion-procreacion.Nuestra mente dedica todo su tiempo y energia a servir a la cultura olvidando que el S genetico es quien nos a creado y es a quien deveriamos cervir.
CIENCIA Y ESPIRITUALIDAD:
La escuela no se me dio bien,creo que soy un poco autista,mi primer libro lo lei con 53años,bueno anteriormente viviendo en comunidad lei la biblia pero tarde 4 años,ese primer libro fue el gen egoista,me impresiono muchisimo y senti las mismas sensaciones que lellendo la biblia,por eso creo que dicen lo mismo pero desde diferente angulo.Despues de leerlo mi mente pensaba pero que sentido de la espiritualidad tendran estos cientificos(quienes somos,que hacemos,a donde bamos etc)al final tuve que ir a la ciudad en busca de un libro que relacione ciencia y espiritualidad,lo encontre y del mismo autor,que decepcion,solo biolentaba sobre el contrario,si el ateo y el crellente sigieran onestamente su camino se darian cuenta que al final estarian en el mismo lugar,segia dandole bueltas a la cabeza porque veia lo mismo en ciencia que en espiritualidad?Este es el cuento,una comparacion.
Ciencia:
Hace unos 20 mil millones de años se produjo la explosión del Big Bang ,siendo está la teoría más probable de la ciencia . En un principio todo el universo estaba concentrado en un solo punto con toda su energía y cuando explotó formó todo el universo en expansion que conocemos, despues aparecio la luz y mas tarde cuando esplotaron las primeras estrellas los sistemas solares como el nuestro,al principio la tierra estaba a una temperatura elevadisima con muchísimas erupciones volcánicas y meteoritos que caían sobre ella ,luego empezaría a enfriarse poco a poco, con el agua procedente de los meteoritos y el vapor debido a la temperatura se fue formando la atmofera y los mares, terminando en una estabilidad y forma más parecida a la que tenemos actualmente .
Espiritualidad: Al principio creo Dios el cielo y la tierra,creo la totalidad de todas las cosas,siendo y estando en esa totalidad,se puede suponer que Dios es ese punto concentrado antes del bing ban. Se expandio creando todo el universo. la tierra era soledad y caos, las tinieblas cubrian el abismo ,entonces dijo hágase la luz y separó la luz de las tinieblas, luego separó las aguas de arriba del cielo creando la atmofera y las de abajo creando los mares y la tierra. .Para mí es lo mismo decir que el universo se formó por si mismo buscando formas más estables que decir que Dios es el universo y crea todo buscando formas más estable.
Ciencia: En algún momento se formaria una molécula con la capacidad de réplicarse a sí misma y rápidamente esparceria sus copias a través de los mares ,los descendientes modernos de esos réplicadores son las moléculas de ADN o genes. Competian tanto entre ellos que evolucionaron a las primeras bacterias y uniendose barias formaron las primeras celulas eucariotas,que agrupandose formaron los animales y plantas como maquinas de supervivencia para la perpetuacion de los genes por reproducion de sus maquinas o cuerpos siendo prollectadas , construidas y dirgidas por esos genes. Nosotros somos máquinas de supervivencia no solo nosotros también animales plantas bacterias y virus pero lo que realmente podemos considerar como vida son los réplicadores, genes que compiten entre ellos por un mayor éxito en la expresión o evolución del código genético que es quien construye y dicta la forma de comportarse de las máquinas de supervivencia, estos réplicadores pueden vivir millones de años ,se podría considerar inmortales, su unidad más grande podría ser la célula ,hay dos células especiales con sólo la mitad del ADN qué son los óvulos y el esperma que al unirse forman una célula completa con un nuevo código genético para crear una nueva máquina de supervivencia y así Perpetuar a los genes.
Si los animales,plantas,peces y aves tenemos mas de un 90 por ciento de nuestros genes iguales, quiere decir que el sistema genetico unico se expresa segun el reino,la especie y el individuo.Creando,dirigiendo y avitando cada selula de su cuerpo.
El sistema genetico tiene las mismas caracteristicas que el espiritu santo: crea,dirige y avita todos los seres vivos siendo uno y eterno,no se save cuando aparecieron,han venido en satelies o se han creado en los mares primigenios,desde luego han sobrevivido cuando la tierra fue bola de hielo y no se save hasta cuando viviran.Si podemos compararlos al(sistema genetico-espiritusanto) y nuestras celulas estan formadas por barias bacterias y virus en cooperacion y cada criatura necesita mas bacterias y virus que celulas de su propio cuerpo para poder digerir la comida y hacer sus actividades estos parasitos son como soldados que cooperan con nuestro sistema genetico o angeles alludando al espiritu santo.
Espiritualidad: Despues de crear Dios el universo y separar las aguas.Aleteaba el espiritu de dios en la superficie de las aguas y he aqui que surgio como un hormigeo de seres vivientes.Viendo que esto era bueno dijo que se multipliquen los peces en el mar,las aves en el cielo y los animales en la tierra,por ultimo creo al hombre a su imagen y semejanza lo hizo para que dominara sobre las demas especies,porque puso al principal de sus angeles al servicio de muchos animales en especial al cervicio del hombre,el angel de saviduria y luz(virus de la cultura).
En el principio hubo una gran batalla en el cielo porque el angel(virus) de saviduria y luz,lucifer,se revelo contra dios(muto de endogeno a patogeno)fue vencido y expulsado convirtiendose en un angel caido(virus patogeno).Este angel caido disfrasado de serpiente entro en el paraiso(naturaleza) y engaño al hombre para que comiera del arbol proivido.En el paraiso esta el arbol de la vida(evolucion del sistema genetico)y el arbol de la ciencia de lo bueno y lo malo(evolucion de la cultura conciente de si,o con lenguage)del que dios nos proivio comer.Y el hombre fue expulsado del paraiso. Vino cristo para revelar la verdad, que no servimos a dios(espiritu santo-sistema genetico)servimos al mundo(cultura-poder)y para volver al reino de dios tenemos que morir para el mundo y volver a nacer en espiritu.
Cuando preguntaron a cristo a que se asemeja el reino de dios,
dijo a una semilla de mostaza que siendo la mas pequeña cuando germina y crece se hace un gran arbol que sive de cobijo para animales y anidan los pajaros(naturaleza_evolucion).
Lei en un antiguo libro mistico:en esta vida no podemos ser uno con dios por causa del pecado original,del cual hemos sido perdonados hace mucho, pero el residuo que a dejado en nosotros no nos permite ser uno con dios,aunque savemos que estamos en el lugar apropiado porque podemos sentirlo,olerlo etc.(pecado original:al poco de nacer aprendemos lenguaje yadquirimos conciencia de si,o somos infectados con el virus de la cultura conciente de si,al retirarnos en silencio(morir para el mundo) somos perdonados pero el residuo,las conesiones neuronales,lenguaje etc no nos permite ser uno con dios en esta vida,hay que volver a nacer en espiritu-sistema genetico.
Dios dijo al hombre que pusiera nombre a animales plantas,pero eso no es lenguaje,noes el arbol de la ciencia de lo bueno y lo malo,son puntos de referencia en una empatisacion mas compleja,sonidos emocionales que marcan dirccion al empatizar.
El futuro: la mistica cree en el fin del mundo o apocalisis,no hay forma de acabar con este problema o infeccion.La ciencia, la malloria cree en el transhumanismo:otro mundo con cambios geneticos,mezcla de lo bilogico con rovotica e informatica etc.Para mi la solucion es fin del mundo,y restauracion de la naturaleza o reino de dios.
Historia:
Hace unos 3 millones de años tallamos las primeras piedras pero muy rusticas no muy diferentes a otros simios,continuo el crecimiento de nuestro cerebro y hace un millon de años tallamos piedras un poco mas complejamente y aparecieron los primeros fuegos domesticos por nestra empatisacion y gran cerebro unos 900 Cm3.
Siempre me he preguntado si es posible dominar el fuego sin lenguaje o conciencia de si,pero si no fuera posible tendria que haber algo de arte decorativo y parece que en ese tiempo no hay.
Nuestro cerebro sigio creciendo hasta los 1300Cm3 junto con nuestro empatizar cada vez mas complejo,la talla de piedra no evoluciono mucho hasta hace unos 150 o 200 mil años que comenzo a hacerlo cada vez mas complejamente junto al comienzo de artesania y decoracion del cuerpo y avita con arcillas de varios colores.
Esto quiere decir que lenguaje y conciencia de si comenzo en ese tiempo por lo menos en el homo sapien que vivia en africa.En los barios millones de años anteriores viviamos en perfecta armonia y muy inteligentemente,la hedad de horo,hasta la gran caida,la adquisicion del lenguaje o conciencia de si.
No solo estaba el homo sapien,tambien en europa estaba el neardental y en asia su primo el denosibano.Estos homos heran anteriores al homo sapien y el cerebro les llego a crecer hasta los 1600Cm3,esto significa que su empatizar era mas complejo sino para que le creceria el cerebro.
Su evolucion fue difernte,ellos vivian en zonas mucho mas frias pasando muchos meses de invierno en cuebas, grandes grupos.Tendrian que pensar mucho sobre el pasado y el futuro,para que el almacenamiento y la recopilacion de comida fuera acorde con sus necesidades,tendrian que tener muchas reglas de convivencia,porque convivir en una cueba de 6 a 8 meses es muy complejo.
Por sus necesidades especiales creo que adquiririan lenguaje y conciencia de si mucho antes que el sapien,supongo que por el clima, biajaban por el proximo oriente y norte de africa donde tuvimos los primeros encuentros con ellos,precisamente hace unos 150 o 200 mil años cuando comenzamos muy poco a poco con el lenguaje,seguramente el homo sapien adquiriria el lenguaje por mimetica o empatisacion con nuestros nuevos vecinos.
Hace unos 100 mil años,el arte comenzaba a estenderse en el homo sapien,pero el clima en el norte de europa era mas caliente que ahora,el mar llego a tener 10 metros mas alto y duro unos 15000 años.Seguramente el neardental y el denosibano llegarian a su maximo cultural y de sivilisacion en ese tiempo,pero luego vino la glasiacion y todo desaparecio bajo miles de metros de hielo.
Mas tarde hace entre 70 y 40 mil años,por el clima los neardentales estaban diseminados en el sur de europa en especial en el mar negro y proximo oriente.El sapien comenzo a emigrar hacia europa y asia por ese lugar,parece que huvo intercambio genetico y sobre todo cultural,porque de esa interrelacion surgio el hombre moderno.
Hace unos 40000 años se extingieron neardentales y denosibanos,por asimilacion ya que tenemos parte de sus genes,costantemente salian nuevos sapien de africa y nos reproduciamos mas eficasmente.Aunque algunos sobrevivirian mucho mas tiempo diseminados entre los sapien.
Parece que la genetica que heredamos nos alludo a adaptarnos al nuevo anviente,y la que no la fuimos perdiendo.
Hay unos genes neardentales que parecen que influllen en el cerebro nuestro, favoreciendo el sindrome autista que parece una enfermedad, pero los mallores descubrimientos modernos los han creado gente con ese sindrome y parece que en vez de ir desapareciendo se esta estendiendo.
Yo me imagino a los neardentales como autistas(super creativos)pero sin la parte frontal del cerebro(cuchicheo,razon)y la parte posterior super desarrollada(vision y oido)es decir gente creativa poco parlanchina y con vision muy profunda y compleja.
Quizas la espiritualidad venga deribada de ellos,consideraban a las estrellas dioses y a ellos sus hijos que se casaron con los hijos de los hombres y de ahi vienen los primeros heroes,porque en ese tiempo habia gigantes:ellos super fuertes y pesados y nosotros canijos y largos,saldrian niños muy diferntes entre ellos gigantes.
Pienso que las primeras grandes civilisaciones tienen mucho que ver con la influencia neardental y sus ultimos representantes moririan hace unos 8 o 12mil años en proximo oriente o el zahara,porque si no como es que en ese tiempo tenian un abance cultural mallor que hace 4 o 5mil años.