I have been reading and preparing a response. So far I don't see a great many differences, in the current chapter (there is so much more to read!) but my impression is this: first paragraph isn't punchy or trenchant. You need to draw out your meaning and demonstrate the urgency of the research you want us to engage in. How and why it is important in ways that motivate people.
You are trained as an academic and that is an important perspective. However I think your work would benefit from a visit to unity consciousness (escape from incessant thinking). What is the reason for life? What are we doing here? What is the point? What is this review supposed to achieve? Why should anyone care? What is the unifying message?
I think that ultimately the changes we advocate will be expressed institutionally, but I am not sure that that framing is a best strategy for the changes we would propose. A focus on institutional change might have the adverse effect of baking in old premises that need to be changed. I feel we need to be persistently mindful of the overarching question, "What are we trying to achieve? What is our vision?" I recommend a focus on intrinsic motivational systems, at the personal and group level, and ask "how can we rearrange motivations so that persons benefit from and act according to the greater good?" The answers to this questions would inevitably shift institutions.
In evolutionary terms, motivations are like codons, whereas Institutions are like entire sections of DNA being migrated from one chromosome to another. Both valid, and the big changes are needed. But they are not independent. The problem with an institutional approach is that it requires a constituency, and that operates at the level of individual motivations. Individuals must see their personal fate as tied up with the fate other people before they will cooperate with them. I think this is probably an expression of MLS. So we are asked to work on all levels of human systems. Please forgive me if I saying anything already built in to your thinking.
We are discussing the fate of the Earth and of humanity. If we undertake to do this with humility, we will not be narrowly focused on the present, and our immediate needs. we will integrate the grand sweep of human potential and try to find the least we can do that will have the maximum effect, both promoting the health of people, life, and the planet, and maximizing freedom and meaning for people. I don't believe absolute freedom is possible or desirable; there must be constraints, but we want to optimize the balance between freedom and cooperation. We need to minimize the deleterious effects of economic differentiation, imparting the privileges of health to some while denying them to others.
The prize is not just a healthy planet. Earth can be healthy without us. The prize is a healthy planet with a healthy biosphere and a humanity living valued, meaningful lives, in healthy balance with all of the other creatures. Because humans are so adaptable, it matters less what the systems are than that our own sense of humanity and conscience is satisfied that we are creating the best possible world for everyone and everything.
You are trained as an academic and that is an important perspective. However I think your work would benefit from a visit to unity consciousness (escape from incessant thinking). What is the reason for life? What are we doing here? What is the point? What is this review supposed to achieve? Why should anyone care? What is the unifying message?
I think that ultimately the changes we advocate will be expressed institutionally, but I am not sure that that framing is a best strategy for the changes we would propose. A focus on institutional change might have the adverse effect of baking in old premises that need to be changed. I feel we need to be persistently mindful of the overarching question, "What are we trying to achieve? What is our vision?" I recommend a focus on intrinsic motivational systems, at the personal and group level, and ask "how can we rearrange motivations so that persons benefit from and act according to the greater good?" The answers to this questions would inevitably shift institutions.
In evolutionary terms, motivations are like codons, whereas Institutions are like entire sections of DNA being migrated from one chromosome to another. Both valid, and the big changes are needed. But they are not independent. The problem with an institutional approach is that it requires a constituency, and that operates at the level of individual motivations. Individuals must see their personal fate as tied up with the fate other people before they will cooperate with them. I think this is probably an expression of MLS. So we are asked to work on all levels of human systems. Please forgive me if I saying anything already built in to your thinking.
We are discussing the fate of the Earth and of humanity. If we undertake to do this with humility, we will not be narrowly focused on the present, and our immediate needs. we will integrate the grand sweep of human potential and try to find the least we can do that will have the maximum effect, both promoting the health of people, life, and the planet, and maximizing freedom and meaning for people. I don't believe absolute freedom is possible or desirable; there must be constraints, but we want to optimize the balance between freedom and cooperation. We need to minimize the deleterious effects of economic differentiation, imparting the privileges of health to some while denying them to others.
The prize is not just a healthy planet. Earth can be healthy without us. The prize is a healthy planet with a healthy biosphere and a humanity living valued, meaningful lives, in healthy balance with all of the other creatures. Because humans are so adaptable, it matters less what the systems are than that our own sense of humanity and conscience is satisfied that we are creating the best possible world for everyone and everything.
