If the Parkland families are a disarming mob,
Then the NRA counter-evolutionaries
are an automated killer infestation.
If the Parkland families are a disarming mob,
Then the NRA counter-evolutionaries
are an automated killer infestation.
What would you say,
if yours to freely choose,
lies closest to godliness:
Does your answer change
if this question changes to:
What lies closest to Gaian Earth Goddessness
If your nearby synonym changes, why?
If not, why not?
These questions came up
when I was looking for a dissertation topic
for InterReligious Dialogue and InterNational Diplomacy.
My Big Question statement began:
The technology and philosophy of dialogue,
derive from philosophy,
natural and social sciences,
and perhaps even abstract psychotherapeutic geometrics.
Rather than asking the more classical academic questions
of how are public health empowerment resources
better and worse than each other,
how do they best practices differ?
Perhaps it is more fruitful to diversely
compare these health/pathology paradigms
to search for their most resilient therapeutic WinWin communion
and wealthy holonic promise.
And so I began inviting the widest,
most diversely multicultural, dialogue
about what are our highest health and therapeutic priorities
for cooperative people
who understand godliness and/or Gaian-ness
as at least sufficient power
for synergetic integrity
to generate light
out of nondual darkness.
Which, on living Earth,
has produced some astounding evolution of compassionate grace history,
polynomial WinWin communication,
and cooperatively centering means
and/or Gaian-nest integral hypotheses.
One answer to Patrick Deneen’s question,
Why Liberalism Failed,
not necessarily opposed to Deneen’s own
more LeftBrain position,
yet considerably shorter,
Profoundly democratic liberalism,
has failed because it has not been multiculturally tried,
to paraphrase anti-colonialism
and non-violent communicating
this may also be a kind of corollary
to respond to a different title,
How the West was Won,
which would thereby postulate
How the West was Lost
by Win/Lose capitalist pretensions
to overpower Win/Win resilient integrity.
What lies closest to godliness for you?
Wise Win/Win wealth
Does your answer change if the question turns to:
What lies closest to Gaian EarthGoddess for you?
If so, why?
If not, why not?
These questions came up as I was looking for a dissertation topic for Euclid University’s PhD in Inter-Religious Dialogue and International Diplomacy.
On Euclid’s website we read something about what this is all about:
“Interfaith diplomacy is an important and new emerging field of research, notably in view of ongoing inter-religious [Win/Lose] conflict, mass migrations [not unrelated to climate change, and trending in that further unfortunate pathological Lose/Lose direction], and grave issues related to radicalization [and concomitant economic and political concerns of growing belief and behavior and investment in apartheid, monoculturing silos, self-ghettoization, and viral tendencies toward Lose/Lose rabid climates of disintegrating terrorism, dualistic nature v spirit theologies, degeneratively entropic absence of robust cooperativity—lack of Win/Win systems thinking, integral multicultural dialogue and design—fading polycultures of democratically liberal love and economic/ecological health development through Win/Win creolization rather than more Business As Usual Western commodification of sacred, integral, holonic, nonsectarian, interdependent Earth].”
Then we can read something about why:
“Euclid’s specialized PhD degree focuses on interfaith practice and the actual application of interfaith skills in the [healthy] community [of non-sectarian, non-violent, non-partisan, non-nationalistic, non-sadistic, non-masochistic cooperative democratic discernment of Win/Win integral responses to outstanding issues seeking effluent equity and affluent interdependent systems, ecosystems, egosystems, governing systems, co-governing systems, eco-governing green systems,…], rather than the advancement of [merely] academic [left-brain dominant, commodified, Win/Lose default Either/Or competitive contradicting and dividing what God may have originally kept Both/And bilaterally bicamerally and binomially cause/effect, Alpha/Omega, Left/Right, Yang/Yin, patriarchal Either/Or and matriarchal Both/And perpetual-flowing matriarchally sacred nutritional integrity kept together for further healthy-wealth Win/Win discernment, discussion, dialogue, non-sectarian diplomacy] knowledge for it’s own sake.”
“Our program places a special [Win/Win] emphasis on contemporary Islam, Muslim-Christian [Abrahamic patriarchal cooperatively co-investing in fertile multicultural and ecologically healthy wealthy self/other-optimizing integrity, authority, responsibility, resilient Win/Win stewardship of power, light, life, economic Zero-interest smart green co-investment,…] dialogue, modern [liberally cooperative green-conservation of left/right, north/south, west/east co-dominant experiential] secularism, as well as de-radicalization [non-violent communication through compassionately resilient cooperative health-supporting words and trusted Golden Rule Win/Win deeds] and [ecologically ecclesiological knowledgeable and wise mutual-polyculturing] mediation.”
So, when I was invited to present a dissertation topic, I suggested:
The technology and philosophy of dialogue, diplomacy, conflict resolution, restorative justice, peace-making, non-violence, WinWin solutions, derive from philosophy, theology, natural and social sciences, and perhaps even abstract psychotherapeutic geometrics. Rather than asking the more classical academic questions of how are these better and worse than each other, how do they differ, perhaps it is more fruitful to diversely and interdependently compare these health/pathology paradigms to search for their most resilient therapeutic WinWin communion and wealthy holonic promise?
Using a combination of Systems and Game Theory, I have a dissertation interest in looking more closely,
with a local interfaith community of ecological/theological dialogue, at any two or three of the following sources to see how their analogical mapping (Gregory Bateson, Ecology of Mind) might combine to inform a robust nonsectarian healing process for Earth’s wounded economic and political climates, natural and spiritual, secular and sacred, and how we might enter into a secular/sacred non-sectarian health-and-climate-care implementation cooperative mission for healing our local Earth, wounded plants, and EgoLeft/EcoRight
nondualistic health/wealth people.
Jane Gordon political philosophy creolization
Thich Nhat Hanh buddhist philosophy nutrition-communication systems
Iain McGilchrist cognitive psychotherapy bicameral (bilateral) integrity
Paul Tillich/Arthur Peacocke Christian theology dialectal panentheism
Charles Eisenstein cooperative economics sacred WinWin evolution
(possibly in analogical dialogue with Islamic economics)
Buckminster Fuller cooperative geometrics 4D prime synergetic relationship
14th Dalai Lama religious philosophy compassionate therapy
Kenneth Cloke WinWin facilitation restorative/non-violent communication
Edward Wilson cognitive biological evolution consilience
Lao Tze systemic health-governance Yang/Yin co-governance
(possibly in dialogue with Universal/Unitarian principles)
David Holmgren permaculture design (integral) multicultural health outcomes
Robert Norton communications theory enthymematic reiteration
To my surprise, this Win/Win cooperatively facilitated research proposal was rejected as not germane to the purposes and implementation focus of the Win/Win Inter-Religious Integrity Dialogue and Public Resilient Health Diplomacy PhD program, with stipulated intent to remain responsive to a United Nations cooperative Win/Win Earth Health Service training project to derive the most resilient terms possible for global co-investment.
So, instead of facilitating a local inter-religious and international dialogue, which would be expensive, sacrifice some trees, burn some gas and oil, it occurred to me to invite you into an even larger community of dialogue about what are our highest public and private health priorities for multiculturally cooperative people who understand godliness and/or Gaian/Marian EarthGoddessness as at least sufficient power to intend enough cooperative integrity for generating light out of nondual darkness.
Which, on living Earth, has produced some astounding evolution of compassionate grace history, and some other, darker herstoric repressions. Even so, we each seek to facilitate and mentor polycultural resilience, polyphonic resonance, polynomial Win/Win communication, polypathic ways, and ego/eco-centering means toward divinely-humane healthy truth of wealth-abundant beauty. Or so it seems to me, which is why my answer is:
To co-facilitate good faith integrity of Earth’s vast health/wealth potential.
What is the difference between a Rescuer
and a Facilitator?
and a resilient health-enabler?
If we insist we must have at least one,
What is a difference
between a pan-sectarian Messiah/Bodhisattva,
a co-inviter into health-fertile mutual service
And, a compassioned co-facilitator,
An Other/Self-cooperative healer?
As for the first,
I look for a distinction,
unconscious or not,
between LeftEgo’s self-dominant intent
for internal wealth-serving service,
growing more fame and less infamy,
more adoration and less apathy,
self-rescuing from an anonymous pit
of unprominent history;
On the other hand,
the Facilitator is an equal opportunity rescuer
for both Ego and Ego’s healthy EcoHabitat,
animals and plants and people,
foreign forests and HereNow complex technocratic cities,
far away deserts and internal oceans of motion,
former golden days and still perpetual nights,
past nutrition and future health,
ancient tribes and future families.
As for differences
between sacred CoMessiahs
and eco-over-ego secular therapists,
perhaps the difference between an integral spirit of abundant faith
and a robust soul for healthy and humble HereNow agnosticism,
like John Rawls’ vulnerable veil of self/other unknowing,
perhaps this is one of those distinctions between metaphysical identities
without a RealTime physical nature difference,
The dubious difference between non-violent sacred communication
secular co-passionate discernment,
between LeftBrain active hope
for future cooperative healthy-wealth understanding,
and RightBrain historical faith
in ancient wealthy-health tribal experience
DNA’s secular/sacred nonsectarian history
of rescuing ourselves
What’s the difference between what’s metaphysically uplifting
and what’s physically integral,
Maybe both are heavier
and one promises to co-arise lighter?
A liberal love-mind
sees Earth’s nurturing eco-nest origins
astoundingly opportune for producing healthy ego-nutritional eggs.
A more conservative eco-political risk taker,
faced with ego’s opportunity
to fly away from mortal risk
to autonomous ego’s long-term survival
or fight to WinEgo/LoseEcoNest pyric victory,
thereby sees ego’s Win/Win in-between opportunity
to produce future cooperative eco-eggs
of self-perpetuating identity,
A narrower, conserving, view
of Earth’s universal health opportunities
and a widening interdependent liberal love potential.
We might become both
ego and eco healthier,
more left non-insula nature embodied
and right amygdala co-passionate spirit soaring
and support both physical/metaphysical views,
held most lovingly together
as WinWin eco/ego-centering integrity,
symbiotic nonfight/nonflight opportunity
for cooperatively mentored solidarity
in health/wealth mutual service
and/or internally BiCameral;
I feel like a high school civics class dropout.
So much confuses me,
to this day,
about democratic constitutional law,
which feels like it should have WinWin original empowerment intent,
about public and private rights,
protected against others’ immoral and illegal, unhealthy wrongs of infringement,
and why we invest so much of our gross,
and I mean really Gross,
in what could not possibly be public health outcomes.
If governments are not for liberating and defending public health
then how could we realistically hope for those constitutionally promised deliverables:
Obviously I missed the day
when our high school civics and U.S. history teacher
explained the complex relationships
between public health
and growing democratic
and public service life,
and healthy-wealthy ways
of building a resilient
how did the Supreme Court buy into the argument
that corporations have the right to buy and sell candidates for public office
because, if they didn’t,
then our legislative regulators
would thereby unconstitutionally restrict
their rights of free speech
as stipulated by our First Amendment?
I have the right to speak up for the public health benefits of marijuana
as compared to alcoholic beverages,
but do I have a first amendment right to purchase, carry, and consume marijuana?
In communications theory,
we differentiate between what is linguistic performance
and what is not speech
but non-verbal action,
Why would that distinction not apply to the First Amendment
for white privileged patriarchal corporations
and yet does seem to apply for just regular persons
like you and me?
I have the right to speak out for white nationalism.
I could even argue that the abolition of slavery
was an unconstitutional taking of personal property,
but that would not give me the right to go out and buy a person,
not even a candidate for public cooperative WinWin wealth service.
It obviously was my misunderstanding
that the First Amendment protection of personal
(not incorporated) rights
is restricted to free speech and peaceful assembly.
Now I’m trying to wrap my Left and Right Brain around
First Amendment incorporated rights to buy and sell governing authority,
rights to buy and sell democratic trust commitments
and transparently free choice-speaking and democratic health investing,
rights to buy and divest of cooperative cultural integrity
to robustly serve in our public health sector
for equal and interdependently informed,
preformed personal (not incorporated) voices
unwilling to buy and sell pro-organic healthy resilient lives.
I keep going back to historic constitution development notes
about this resonant rhetorical First Amendment,
trying to find a strict conservative defense of original intent
that might responsibly, and healthily, stretch enough
to include corporate freedom to peacefully purchase public assemblies
and rent free-market corporate spokespersons
for Win/Lose choices
supporting short-term capital returns
against ecological-organic long-term democratic healthy climate services
predicting nothing but further Lose/Lose patriarchal retributive injustice
as everyday capital-hoarding
cynical and nihilistic privileged market freedom
for inordinate inhumane over-investment
in enslaving otherwise reasonably healthy minds
and public spirits
and trusting natures
for freely communicating democratically resilient health services.
when I was in graduate school,
studying political philosophy,
and integral multicultural wealth-of-health design,
we learned corporate investment in partisan political processes
as a private sector unhealthy opportunity
to grow white privileged economic buy and sell colonialism,
sponsored and supported by xenophobic unhealthy minds.
Which feels rather distant
from protecting our informed rights
to free and robust speech
and peaceful assembly
within and among this public service
promoting resiliently wealthy eco-logical,
of these healthy uniting WinWin States.