Participatory Spirituality for the 21st Century
After much extended consideration I changed the name of my blog from Integral Postmetaphysical Enaction to the above. (Former blog postings in this thread.) It will still be at the same link. I've decided to change the name largely due to no longer having much interest in integral theory. Still some, but not enough to justify it in the name. I'm still interested in postmetaphysics, but who the hell has heard of that outside a select few eggheads? I am much more interested in motivating myself and others into participating with progressive ideals and enacting those policies in all domains. Keeping the old blog name was more than a bit off putting for that broader agenda. I'll keep the old name as a subtitle for now for those familiar with and searching for it. But my intent is to get more people involved in the hope of actually changing things for the better instead of engaging in interesting but mostly armchair speculations.
I retained the word enaction for a few reasons. It relates to specific philosophical models of embodied cognition (and/or realism) in which I'm still interested and will continue to write about. It is a progressive evolution over previous models highlighting our participation with co-creating our realities. Note the prefix co, indicating that though we participate the Real grounds and delimits that participation. But that's still egghead. Mostly because the word means creating law, which to me is the most effective way for us to implement our values in society. Hence a lot of my focus is on motivating us to participate in changing or creating laws aligned with progressive ideals.
The blog will still be the same except that the name will more accurately reflect what I've been doing here for the past several months. I hope the current audience will continue to read. And I hope the new name will attract new readers who are motivated to join me in participating in progressive ideals and enacting laws and structures to express that agenda.
Elizabeth Warren's keynote at the New Populism Conference today. And what a speech. She is ready to fight back and inspires other progressives to do the same. She frames progressive principles, like that we are in this together. She lays out some of the key issues and the values that support them. This is the progressive framing that will win for us in the coming election. And it's not just spin; she is sincere and authentic about these values, and they are popular with the American people.
The above is just an excerpt. The entire transcript is here.
Thom Hartmann on the proposed 28th Amendment. In this Ted Talk he notes that Lincoln didn't fight the civil war to free the corporations. He gives a history lesson on how this country was founded on fighting the corporations of England. And when American corporations took over, how we fought back vigorously yet again. The corporations have once again taken over backed by the Supreme Corp, which has said that corporations are people and that money equals speech. And we need to fight back one more time, now with the proposed 28th Amendment to our Constitution which reverses those two key ingredients. And the only way it will ever pass is the way it did the first two times: The people have to get involved, speak up loudly and often, and force Congress to enact it and their States to ratify it. As Hartmann often says: "Tag, you're it." If we don't do it it won't get done.
What do you think of this?
Since the link if to the article on the Monsanto Act and not the site in general (Collective Evolution) I'm guessing you mean what do I think of the Act. I have mixed feelings and will need to investigate further. I'm not opposed to genetically modified organisms (GMO) per se. Rifkin has opened me to how sci-tech is pivotal to the emerging Commons era. Sometimes it seems reactive to be against it, like in the movie Transcendence.
On the other very big hand, when big corporations like Monsanto are promoting it backed by big financial institutions that is great cause for concern. If GMO research was led by government and/or non-profit scientists I'd be more reassured that it was safe and effective. That it is being led by Monsanto, given the track record of those involved, I can only surmise that profit is paramount and safety and the environment are little considered.
E.g., see this wiki article on the GMO controversy.
"There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from these crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food. The safety assessment of genetically engineered food products by regulatory bodies starts with an evaluation of whether or not the food is substantially equivalent to non-genetically engineered counterparts that are already deemed fit for human consumption. No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from genetically modified food."
See the references, which are from non-corporate scientists.
Regressives want to make reclassifying ISPs illegal. See the freepress petition below my comments. The regressives in Congress now want to make it illegal to classify ISPs as common carriers. They want to make democracy illegal! No surprise really, as that is the corporate agenda, to turn us into a fascist oligarchy. Here are my comments that I added to the petition:
Could it be any more apparent that this Bill reflects the Republican leash to the corporate oligopoly? The rest of us want democracy, and that means keeping the internet neutral. And that means it must be classified as a common carrier. Don't worry, the ISPs will still continue to make a lot of money that way so they can fill up your coffers. But let's preserve democracy, since the rest of us can vote you out of office if you keep sucking the corporate teat. Then NO money for you. Until of course you go to work for the ISPs, your ultimate goal apparently.
And now freepress on the petition:
Obama's new rules will save money. And oh yeah, maybe the planet. They will come out Monday, where by executive order he'll limit CO2 pollution. Which of course has created a stir with climate deniers as well as business promoters, often one and the same. I laud the President for taking action when the regressive-controlled Congress obviously will not. One of the faux reasons offered by the latter is epitomized by the US Chamber of Commerce's specious frothing. Krugman as usual destroys their rabidity.
The Chamber tried something highly unusual for regressives in trying to prove Obama's regulations would destroy business; they tried facts! I know, hard to believe. Thing is, what their facts proved was that while the new regulations would indeed cost something, it will hardly destroy business. Yes, it will cost $50 billion a year until 2030, but when you compare it with the GDP over that same period, $21 trillion, our investment in reducing CO2 pollution comes to about 0.2% of GDP.
Krugman, and I dare say most reasonable people, would find that a negligible investment to not only reduce climate change but to drastically reduce its financial costs. The latter will exponentially dwarf our $50 billion a year cost through the decimation of agriculture, power overloads, infrastructure degeneration and a host of others. We are getting a business bargain here, actually saving money for everyone in the long run. But the costs saved for everyone means the costs governments would have had to pay out to clean up big business' pollution mess, which they never take into account since it focuses only on itself. No food, no power, no infrastructure will decimate those businesses too, they just refuse to accept it.
The Walmart economy. See the video and please take action at the link, thanks.
Warren and Picketty on inequality. They appeared together last night on HuffPost Live, video at the link. The Patriotic Millionaires provided funding for the program, their motto being: Because our country is more important than our money. Quite refreshing given the usual regressive hoarding and oligarchic fascism. (Btw, Krugman explains Picketty's response to the Financial Times over the latter's claim that Picketty got some data wrong.)