Energy’s Dying Wish

So, if I understand correctly,
you want to respond to inevitable energy descent
by upgrading incentives for cooperative communication,
positive information expansion,
research and regenerative design,
and ecopolitical evaluation strategies?

because we achieved current WinWin cooperative communication
and organic networking capacities
by virtue of investment advances
through recent past patriarchal dominant cultures
drawing down slow-grown renewable sources of energy,
especially oil and gas
coal and trees,
these having emerged over multiple millennial investments
of time,
stories told in ergodic rhythm languages
of Earth,
and yang-climate atmospheres
creating lungs for co-respiring systems
and bicameral hearts
for communicating nutritional feedback systems,
and stomachs for competitive and cooperative digestive exchange systems,
and capital-investing minds
for creating cooperative political empowering tools
and languages
and ecosystems.

Wow, that covered a lot of polyculturing outcomes!
Now, if we could come back down to Mother Earth,
and not quite so deeply lost within your nutritional ecology,
for our conversation today.
Could you say more about what you mean by cooperative v competitive invested communication,
are regenerative research design strategies
your suggested ecopolitical application
for more positive communication?

We have developed diverse frames for dipolar cooperative outcome farming
among more competitively complex survival relationships.

Systems theory speaks of whole interdependent co-arising networks
(and thereby also dualdark co-gravitating)
of mutual subsidiary alliance,
within a concave matriarchal,
lattice network architecture
co-empowering networks of cooperative communication.

Then, too,
we have Closed System patriarchal Business As Capitalism Usual.

We also see these dipolar contrasts across a co-arising spectrum
in Process Theology
and Game Theory,
where WinWin continues regenerative play
across relational transactions,
while WinLose competitions
of self more and others less
are rooted more in patriarchal capitalism’s
misunderstandings of Earth’s most regenerate revolutions
rooted in Mother Earth’s nutritionally nurtured
Golden Rule.

I’m not sure that responded to my question
about cooperative v competitive communication,
especially in this context of self-perpetuating research design.

Well then,
I’m not cooperating very well
am I?
Let’s see,
maybe an example.

Let’s imagine
you are the original creator of language.
Your job
is to research the function of things,
and the energy flow of relationships,
to invent, as inclusively as possible,
some sounds and actions
that become nouns and verbs
and prepositions
and then, too, some adjectives and nuancing adverbs,
and especially some exclamations
to communicate cooperatively
about when shit happens,
as it will,
but also when grace happens,
as Earth unfolds spacetime
in four equivalent dimensions,
an thereby must enfold concave
dualdark (0)-sum ergodic patterns
of co-intelligent balance.

So, my vocation
is not just to unilaterally invent polynomial labels
but also to find out what my family and friends
could effectively reiterate
as mutually nutritional information?

verbal sounds and nonverbal actions
for equivalent health v pathology meanings
between extended families of multiculturing species,
thereby growing positive exegetical communication,
and not just adding further eisegetical Towers of Babel
multicultural communication and concomitant economic
and political empowerment/disempowerment problems,
more than polypathically regenerative co-empowerment.

So we look and listen together
for cooperative resolutions
already in use,
and we notice historical relationships
between siblings first,
then between generations of siblings next,
on out to include all animated objects,
in process of becoming history’s polynomial network
of subjects.

Time unfolds bilaterally
and binomially
and multi-generationally,
where new-yin grows old-yang grows new-yin.
Every polynomial generation
seems to have not just our spoken nomial deductive label,
but also a setting apart from it’s organic hypostatic understory.
Every polynomial
includes an implied binomially interdependent cognitive relationship
with Earth’s other causes
and Earth’s oncoming multiculturing
nutritionally cooperative
and toxically competing effects.

Am I cooperatively communicating
this regeneratively co-designing
WinWin cooperative ecopolitical game yet?

I’m not sure your example helped your cooperative intent.
But, we are nearly out of time…

No, that can’t be.
Perhaps we’re merely running out of mutual highest priority time
for co-investment in this particular direction,
for now.

I stand corrected.

No need to stand.
Keep spiraling around our subject
in your reiterative
back to (0)-sum zoning in way,
helping us stay on our cooperative target.

perhaps you could give an example
of how we might upgrade incentives
for cooperative communication,
both verbal and nonverbal.

You’re asking about Golden Rule applications,
cooperating mythos with LeftBrain dominant logos.
To incentivize YinRight matriarchal equivalence,
give prejudicial weight to WinWin
as our default cooperative strategy
for research and policy development
and framing ancient WinLose polarized issues
between yang secular deductivity
and yin sacred inductivity,
because regenerative is to degenerative
as animating dipolar co-arisings
are to static polarizing competing extremities
not at all polynomial,
remaining dissonantly adrift
as notnot polynomial variations
for I Am
without yet echoing
Therefore We Are.

We are…

Cooperatively regenerate communicators
more than competitively WinLose degenerators.

That was an example,
or a principle?

An example
could be cash
for actively participating in cooperatively owned
and self-governed regenerative communication,
for WinWin choice-making valued higher than
WinLose overpowering,
for deep ecological economic education,
for democratic bicameral implementation
and whole Earth ecosystemic co-evaluation processes,
in which coal and oil and gas fields
are becoming increasingly disinvested,
while trees building Earth’s climates
and fire and water decomposing landscapes
each cast their Golden Rule.

Pay more for cooperative investment,
and charge less interest for co-investment.

Charge higher interest
and autonomous user fees for persons,
including corporations
who would continue competitively disinvesting
away from climate and landscape ecotherapies.

it feels to me like we have communicated
for future positive relationships
for us.
How about you?
Where would you place this interview
on your energy-giving v energy-receiving scale?
Where WinWin is (0)-sum balanced,
giving at least as good as Golden Rule receiving.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s