Post by geestkraker on Oct 7, 2018 19:34:45 GMT
Animization - Paving a road to a Fixation of Belief in Society through a Druidric Technocracy, i.e. "the rule of the people made effective through the agency of their servants, the scientists and engineers" as it was defined by William Henry Smyth where the English term 'science' has been corrected and/or upgraded by Charles Sanders Peirce's 'animistic' model, or the Pragmatic Model as he coined it (or the Creative-Evolutionary Model, as I call it), i.e. that:
"[Science is] the method wherein inquiry regards itself as fallible and purposely tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and improves itself." The Pragmatic Model is a summary of Charles S. Peirce's The Fixation of Belief.
I hereby try to outline various texts and sources that I think are beneficial or even required in order to pave a road out of the Tyranny of Belief for Humanity.
Just as I used my nickname Geestkraker pre-2013 and before knowing about BEAM and the Plejaren, I also worked on the thought experiment or preface for a 'project' for a Society to Overcome the Tyranny of Belief. I used the word Animization after reading 'Peircean Animism and the End of Civilization' by Eugene Halton and 'Endgame' by Derrick Jensen.
Eugene Halton's text had the preface:
He also added this quote by Charles S. Peirce's friend William James:
Derrick Jensen's Endgame wrote this about the term civilization in its chapter Civilization:
This is what RSFOutzen@Geestkraker concluded from these texts and other sources and his own knowledge and instinct:
The Romans were the ones who coined the term civilization rather arrogantly, while they saw their 'civilization' as the Greco-Roman 'civilization', while they defined especially the Celtic as well as other "wild" tribes as 'barbaric'. The Greek coined the term barbaric simply derived from their word for gibberish. Those wildlings (yes, coined by Game of Thrones), whether North African tribes, Celtic, Germanic, Slavic or other tribes were Barbarians according to Greco-Roman civilization because of the way they lived. Dirty, primitive, weird gibberish language. As I said this was particularly arrogant, because Celtic tribes, although not organized in Cities or City States like the Romans and Greeks and even the Roman Empire's main adversary Carthago, they were as technologically advanced or even more advanced in fact. This is the closest I can think of in known Earthling history where a culture was both spiritually *and* technologically superior to their main adversary. The Celts or Gauls were not top-down organized like the Romans. To outline it for the readers simplistically and in order to cultivate their imagination: The Celts were wildling freefolks where both genders often train in the use of chainmail, longsword, big shields and horseback riding, however did not use the same top-down organized troop formations the way the Romans and Greeks did.
The Germanic people who resided more or less in what today is Northern Germany, Denmark, and southern Norway and Sweden - as I understand it - were in awe of the Celtic culture. Their sympathy was with the enemies of Rome. I may be depicting a romanticised view of the Celtic-Germanic culture here. It certainly was not perfect. We know that Stone Henge was used for ritualistic executions and they had in-fights the tribes in between. The infighting was used to the advantage of the Roman Empire that slowly ground the Celtic/Gaulish tribes and supplanted them with 'civilization'. Even though the Roman Empire fell apart it survived as the Frankish Empire in the 8th century, the Catholic church as well as the following European Empires, especially the 'British Empire' (read: the English Empire).
They all inherited this definition of Civilization that paved a road to a separation between the 'civilized' humans and nature with various incarnations as religious, dualistic or materialistic foundationalist beliefs.
Civilization however falsely believes that Civilization is inherently advanced compared to those 'primitive' wildling societies. Especially in its inception this notion must have been highly questionable when the contemporary Celtic Druidry was comparatively technologically (as well as spiritually) more advanced. And as we can learn from the mentioned texts, Civilization is actually very primitivistic, inherently negative and self-defeating like cancer.
The Celtic Druidry was an example of an early Animization (a term I coined from the latin word anima (spirit)), where people are not separate from nature and must respect nature's governing rules in order to not pave a road to self-defeat like a cancer.
I enjoyed reading Derrick Jensen's Engame that, although his views have been described as 'primitivist' by some, I think he effectively 'proved' that it is civilization that is primitivist rather than primordial animistic societies.
Our imperialistic culture has caused us to associate technology with advanced society and associate civilization with advanced society, thus technology is falsely associated with civilization by primitivists and others who are ignorantly infected by the very foundationalist beliefs and unrecognised circular logic cultivated by the very same civilization.
However when we recognise that Civilization and its history as a self-serving, self-deceptive lie, we might remember that Technology simply is a word from Greek from the unison of τέχνη (skill or craft) + -λογία/-logia (study), thus the science of craft. As outlined in the preface of Eugene Halton's text, "[humans] are wired to marvel in nature, and this reverencing attunement
does not require a concept of God. Marveling in nature proves to be not only a motive source of human evolution, but key to continued development" and thus technology, the science of craft, is this inherently technological animal's natural extension of behaviour, if Earthling humans were not so stupid and inclined to being stuck in foundationalist beliefs.
I would like to outline how and why the science of craft must be applied to society rather than the science of exploitation and deception as we have it now.
Modern 20th and 21st century Civilization has evolved to depend on the science of exploitation and deception (as also outlined in Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman's Manufacturing Consent) against which we must rebel (overcome by replacing) through reason, teaching of the spirit, the science of craft - everything applied to society. Even if it will take hundreds of years to achieve, which may well become the case.
Karl Marx and Adam Smith alike as well as many other thinkers did try to outline a way to overcome the exploitation of man by man. Karl Marx et al called one stage socialism in which 'the workers control of the means of production'. Although I will not advocate for polit(r)ics, we should not out of hand dismiss decent attempts at overcoming inherently indecent behaviour by the Masters of Mankind (as defined by Adam Smith). Karl Marx and other socialists wanted to apply the new 19th century trends of 'evolutionary biology' to society and suggested that 'the workers control of the means of production' was simply a natural inheritor of the then current stage of society which was also the natural inheritor of feudalism. I do not think their approach was unreasonable, quite the contrary. And although Karl Marx was not right about all his predictions, some of them have become 'true'. He did not know that in his future Lenin would misuse his ideas for his own gains, make them his business and create yet another form of exploitative State Capitalism falsely called Socialism or Communism. Nor did he know that Liberal Democracy's version of State Capitalism would be so creative in its application of exploitation and deception onto the masses. Yet he was predictive in them being inherently unstable and liable to 'crash'. All prophetic words, even if recorded as written texts, will get misused by certain types of people for their own gain. Especially if lacking in a more advanced and thorough understanding. Also certain individuals will always take advantage of popular ideas and corrupt them for their own gain.
A US-American economist by the name Thorstein Veblen wanted to correct Karl Marx et al with his Evolutionary Economics which he coined after Charles Peirce's Evolutionary Epistemology as well as (like Peirce himself) after the evolutionists Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace.
It may very well be possible to learn Karl Marx and correct him through the scientific method, as Karl Popper also wanted. Indeed, all ideas should be reviewed at their merit and corrected through the scientific method, i.e. the creative-evolutionary model. It may be sufficient to learn from Thorstein Veblen and where he connects to Charles Peirce's Evolutionary Epistemology and where Technocracy connects and derives from Thorstein Veblen's Evolutionary Economics.
Sadly the Technocracy movement relied on logical positivism rather than fallibilism in their approach to science, but since all human beings do in fact learn because they have this creative capacity (abductive reasoning, the spirit), all science is still science at some level and should be reviewed at their merits (neutral-positive) and never just dismissed out of hand (foundationalist belief).
Technocracy Inc. has a history and stored knowledge that needs to be dug up and preserved. Their organisation still exists and I would wish that people that have connected themselves with the spiritual teaching and/or understand its basics would seek out an education by Technocracy Inc. (especially if they live in North America) without missionising anything about the spiritual teaching (also we should never missionise either way).
Combining the spiritual teaching, Charles S. Peirce's Classification of the Sciences & Pragmatic/Animistic/Druidric/Creative-Evolutionary model and what Technocracy Inc. can teach about physical economics would be very beneficial if not crucial to the goals of PSI. The most important part here *is* the spiritual teaching, but I would hope people would be quicker to learn since they have hopefully taugh themselves to become more logical in order to pursuit other learning.
Technocracy insists that a real economy is physical and thus is one and the same science as ecology - thus that study belongs under the physical sciences in the pragmatic model of the classification of the sciences. So even if Technocracy lack in understanding the science of the creative human spirit that the scientist depend on, they are accurate in their critique of mainstream 'economics' which frankly is less scientific than theology.
Technocracy is a North American incorporated organisation because they needed to secure their information by protection and attempted to do that through the law. I guarantee you that FBI did try to infiltrate regardlessly in order to spy. Technocracy however is *not* a political party and even denies citizens membership if they are also members of a political party, whether Republican, Democrat, Communist or Fascist. Nor do they seek violent revolution in any form or way. They are purely an organisation in pursuit of educating the North American public, which may well be an overambitious aim.
But again, it is necessary for Post-Amerika to learn about Technocracy' and the preceding Technical Alliance's history and organisation from a neutral-positive non-ideological position to pick up what is needed to create a Technate in North America, if not all of America (spanning from Argentina to Canada). The physical area of Russian Federation already suffices as a Technate. So would Eurafrika (which would also include the Middle East, in my view). Ultimately the planet ought to be one Global Technate as the respective resources must be used to advance the interests of Humanity and not in order to advance the interests of a powerful elite minority. Second: The Technate through its complete understanding of both the physical and psychical sciences (and the basics of the spiritual teaching) must always respect the limits of nature as the only legitimate "dictator". The Technate cannot "exploit" nature in the name of Human 'luxury' and must always respect its limits.
The governing of a Technate is technical and scientific, and supposedly must have access to sufficient resources in order to properly operate a non-monetary system; it is not political - after all politics is not necessary and only an educated public will know and understand when there would be any exceptions to individuals' liberty. After all the best governments govern the least. The only way the society can be democratic is if technology and the means of production are under the effective control and surveillance by the masses. So every individual must have access and overview of everything a Technate does, without necessarily being authorized in the respective areas of the Technate (it is obviously necessary to think hard on ways to prevent any group of people from seizing power over the public). Another common wisdom is that a democracy is a free market of ideas where free market should not be confused with capitalism. I assert that the only legitimate copyright is 'intellectual' property. Otherwise it is public property in a society where means of production and technology are under the effective control of the public themselves. Within such a society they have a rightful physical share for their respective fundamental needs.
Inside a Technate it would still be possible to maintain various cultures, especially on an overpopulated planet where it would be necessary to control internal migration. These exceptions to liberties would be understood by an educated public.
Words and concepts of the Pragmatic Model to be learned (in order to correct both Technocracy and 'science'):
abduction
semiotics
epistemology
fallibilism
foundationalism
science
special sciences
Classification of the Sciences <- tl;dr
Words and concepts of Technocracy to be learned:
Technate and Proto-Technate
Technocracy
Physical economics
Energy Accounting / Energy credits
Price System
Urbanate
Other concepts to be learned:
Thermodynamics, biophysical economics, thermoeconomics, ecology.
Classification of the Sciences:
www.ecosia.org/search?q=Classification+of+the+Sciences
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_the_sciences_%28Peirce%29
A tl;dr of Classification of the Sciences.
www.textlog.de/4257.html
"[Science is] the method wherein inquiry regards itself as fallible and purposely tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and improves itself." The Pragmatic Model is a summary of Charles S. Peirce's The Fixation of Belief.
A very Peircean inspired vocabulary with which I argue we can best correct the primitive language English, but in the very same spirit we could and should even correct the Peircean vocabulary (as well as any other good idea) as we go and from our very teaching of the spirit:
Creation or evolutionary love -> human spirit/ghost -> abductive reasoning -> science -> science of craft -> science of craft applied to society
Technology - The science of craft
Technocracy - The science of craft applied to society - "the rule of the people made effective through the agency of their servants, the scientists and engineers" - depends on Evolutionary Economics, where the otherwise barely scientific 'economics' has been moved to the Physical Sciences reuniting with Ecology as *one* science.
What Technocracy is not in this context: A group of scientists applying a SkyNet system in order to control all human beings of society. Quite the contrary it advocates the control of technology, applied to a transparent society effectively by and for the people.
Evolutionary Economics - Physical Economics (a.k.a. Ecology) - depends on Evolutionary or Fallibilist Epistemology (the animistic/Pragmatic Model).
Evolutionary or Fallibilist Epistemology is the non-foundationalist definition, or underlying spirit, of science as "the method wherein inquiry regards itself as fallible and purposely tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and improves itself." and insists no human activity and certainly not science can go anywhere without some level of abductive reasoning. Abductive reasoning depends on the human spirit which is tuned into the very fabric of the Universe or reality. Science is thus seen as the very method to Overcome the Tyranny of Foundationalist Beliefs and with its insistence on depending on Abductive reasoning it is effectively a reincarnation of Classical Skepticism.
Abduction - The General Idea or immediate Hypothesis, where the inquirer should attempt to suspend belief (neutral) and also attempt to suspend belief whether the inquirer can succeed in suspending belief in order to pursuit the truth (positive). Genuine abductive reasoning could be seen as an early stage of The Spiritual Teaching, if not actually the spiritual teaching since one does not depend on a specific teacher. One of the most advanced attempts by Earthling science. Indeed we could and should correct with the use and knowledge of the spirit.
As outlined from Peircean Animism and the End of Civilization:
BEAM - The Spiritual Teaching or other sciences, techniques and/or technologies applied to the human spirit and mind, including meditation, training mathematics or learning new languages.
Foundationalism is a view about the structure of justification or knowledge. The foundationalist’s thesis in short is that all knowledge or justified belief rest ultimately on a foundation of noninferential knowledge or justified belief. In other words: Any belief exempt from inquiry.
Creation or evolutionary love -> human spirit/ghost -> abductive reasoning -> science -> science of craft -> science of craft applied to society
Technology - The science of craft
Technocracy - The science of craft applied to society - "the rule of the people made effective through the agency of their servants, the scientists and engineers" - depends on Evolutionary Economics, where the otherwise barely scientific 'economics' has been moved to the Physical Sciences reuniting with Ecology as *one* science.
What Technocracy is not in this context: A group of scientists applying a SkyNet system in order to control all human beings of society. Quite the contrary it advocates the control of technology, applied to a transparent society effectively by and for the people.
Evolutionary Economics - Physical Economics (a.k.a. Ecology) - depends on Evolutionary or Fallibilist Epistemology (the animistic/Pragmatic Model).
Evolutionary or Fallibilist Epistemology is the non-foundationalist definition, or underlying spirit, of science as "the method wherein inquiry regards itself as fallible and purposely tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and improves itself." and insists no human activity and certainly not science can go anywhere without some level of abductive reasoning. Abductive reasoning depends on the human spirit which is tuned into the very fabric of the Universe or reality. Science is thus seen as the very method to Overcome the Tyranny of Foundationalist Beliefs and with its insistence on depending on Abductive reasoning it is effectively a reincarnation of Classical Skepticism.
Abduction - The General Idea or immediate Hypothesis, where the inquirer should attempt to suspend belief (neutral) and also attempt to suspend belief whether the inquirer can succeed in suspending belief in order to pursuit the truth (positive). Genuine abductive reasoning could be seen as an early stage of The Spiritual Teaching, if not actually the spiritual teaching since one does not depend on a specific teacher. One of the most advanced attempts by Earthling science. Indeed we could and should correct with the use and knowledge of the spirit.
As outlined from Peircean Animism and the End of Civilization:
Peirce claimed that through abductive inference, new information validly enters into scientific reasoning. Without it, as in [Karl] Popper’s view that hypothesis is not itself logical [or that logic is not logic without abductive reasoning, rsfo], a lucky but not logical guess, science is reduced to a calculating machine or knowledge system operating solely through deductive and inductive inferences [i.e. epistemological objectivism (i.e. (dualistic) logical positivism, materialism), rsfo]; with it, science is a life, rooted in the desire to learn. Knowledge, in Peirce’s view of science, is not the big thing it is for many other theories of science. Rather, it is the desire to learn, rooted in inquiry.
Peirce’s appeals to instinct [human spirit, rsfo] have troubled philosophers, especially those who believe that all human beliefs are social constructions, including human nature [i.e. epistemological subjectivism (also dualistic), rsfo]. Yet I claim that the evolutionary record reveals that human nature results from a fascinating bio-social process of development that required the exercise of one’s instinctive inferencing, which remains embedded in the human body today, though repressed by the rational-mechanical outlook of modern consciousness.
We need to look to the conditions of hunter-gatherer life for the most direct picture of how a human propensity for abductive inferencing evolved, a better view, in my opinion, than that afforded by machine models of human consciousness [Roger Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind comes to mind, rsfo]. I am also claiming that the historical conception of God itself marks the moment of human alienation from participation in the conditions through which human abductive inference evolved [perhaps the real proverbial fall of man, rsfo].
Peirce’s appeals to instinct [human spirit, rsfo] have troubled philosophers, especially those who believe that all human beliefs are social constructions, including human nature [i.e. epistemological subjectivism (also dualistic), rsfo]. Yet I claim that the evolutionary record reveals that human nature results from a fascinating bio-social process of development that required the exercise of one’s instinctive inferencing, which remains embedded in the human body today, though repressed by the rational-mechanical outlook of modern consciousness.
We need to look to the conditions of hunter-gatherer life for the most direct picture of how a human propensity for abductive inferencing evolved, a better view, in my opinion, than that afforded by machine models of human consciousness [Roger Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind comes to mind, rsfo]. I am also claiming that the historical conception of God itself marks the moment of human alienation from participation in the conditions through which human abductive inference evolved [perhaps the real proverbial fall of man, rsfo].
BEAM - The Spiritual Teaching or other sciences, techniques and/or technologies applied to the human spirit and mind, including meditation, training mathematics or learning new languages.
Foundationalism is a view about the structure of justification or knowledge. The foundationalist’s thesis in short is that all knowledge or justified belief rest ultimately on a foundation of noninferential knowledge or justified belief. In other words: Any belief exempt from inquiry.
I hereby try to outline various texts and sources that I think are beneficial or even required in order to pave a road out of the Tyranny of Belief for Humanity.
Just as I used my nickname Geestkraker pre-2013 and before knowing about BEAM and the Plejaren, I also worked on the thought experiment or preface for a 'project' for a Society to Overcome the Tyranny of Belief. I used the word Animization after reading 'Peircean Animism and the End of Civilization' by Eugene Halton and 'Endgame' by Derrick Jensen.
Eugene Halton's text had the preface:
Charles Peirce claimed that logically “every true universal, every continuum, is a living and conscious being.” Such a claim is precisely what hunter-gatherers believe: a world-view depicted as animism. Suppose animism represents a sophisticated world-view, ineradicably embodied in our physical bodies, and that Peirce’s philosophy points toward a new kind of civilization, inclusive of what I term animate mind. We are wired to marvel in nature, and this reverencing attunement does not require a concept of God. Marveling in nature proves to be not only a motive source of human evolution, but key to continued development.
He also added this quote by Charles S. Peirce's friend William James:
“Our intelligence cannot wall itself up alive, like a pupa in its chrysalis. It must at any cost keep on speaking terms with the universe that engendered it.”
Derrick Jensen's Endgame wrote this about the term civilization in its chapter Civilization:
"Civilization originates in conquest abroad and repression at home."
Stanley Diamond
If I’m going to contemplate the collapse of civilization, I need to define what it is. I looked in some dictionaries. Webster’s calls civilization “a high stage of social and cultural development.” The Oxford English Dictionary describes it as “a developed or advanced state of human society.” All the other dictionaries I checked were similarly laudatory. These definitions, no matter how broadly shared, helped me not in the slightest. They seemed to me hopelessly sloppy. After reading them, I still had no idea what the hell a civilization is: define high, developed, or advanced, please. The definitions, it struck me, are also extremely self-serving: can you imagine writers of dictionaries willingly classifying themselves as members of “a low, undeveloped, or backward state of human society”?
I suddenly remembered that all writers, including writers of dictionaries, are propagandists, and I realized that these definitions are, in fact, bite-sized chunks of propaganda, concise articulations of the arrogance that has led those who believe they are living in the most advanced—and best—culture to attempt to impose by force this way of being on all others.
I would define a civilization much more precisely, and I believe more usefully, as a culture - that is, a complex of stories, institutions, and artifacts - that both leads to and emerges from the growth of cities (civilization, see civil: from civis, meaning citizen, from Latin civitatis, meaning city-state), with cities being defined—so as to distinguish them from camps, villages, and so on - as people living more or less permanently in one place in densities high enough to require the routine importation of food and other necessities of life. Thus a Tolowa village five hundred years ago where I live in Tu’nes (meadow long in the Tolowa tongue), now called Crescent City, California, would not have been a city, since the Tolowa ate native salmon, clams, deer, huckleberries, and so on, and had no need to bring in food from outside. Thus, under my definition, the Tolowa, because their way of living was not characterized by the growth of city-states, would not have been civilized. On the other hand, the Aztecs were. Their social structure led inevitably to great city-states like Iztapalapa and Tenochtitlán, the latter of which was, when Europeans first encountered it, far larger than any city in Europe, with a population five times that of London or Seville. Shortly before razing Tenochtitlán and slaughtering or enslaving its inhabitants, the explorer and conquistador Hernando Cortés remarked that it was easily the most beautiful city on earth. Beautiful or not, Tenochtitlán required, as do all cities, the (often forced) importation of food and other resources. The story of any civilization is the story of the rise of city-states, which means it is the story of the funneling of resources toward these centers (in order to sustain them and cause them to grow), which means it is the story of an increasing region of unsustainability surrounded by an increasingly exploited countryside.
Stanley Diamond
If I’m going to contemplate the collapse of civilization, I need to define what it is. I looked in some dictionaries. Webster’s calls civilization “a high stage of social and cultural development.” The Oxford English Dictionary describes it as “a developed or advanced state of human society.” All the other dictionaries I checked were similarly laudatory. These definitions, no matter how broadly shared, helped me not in the slightest. They seemed to me hopelessly sloppy. After reading them, I still had no idea what the hell a civilization is: define high, developed, or advanced, please. The definitions, it struck me, are also extremely self-serving: can you imagine writers of dictionaries willingly classifying themselves as members of “a low, undeveloped, or backward state of human society”?
I suddenly remembered that all writers, including writers of dictionaries, are propagandists, and I realized that these definitions are, in fact, bite-sized chunks of propaganda, concise articulations of the arrogance that has led those who believe they are living in the most advanced—and best—culture to attempt to impose by force this way of being on all others.
I would define a civilization much more precisely, and I believe more usefully, as a culture - that is, a complex of stories, institutions, and artifacts - that both leads to and emerges from the growth of cities (civilization, see civil: from civis, meaning citizen, from Latin civitatis, meaning city-state), with cities being defined—so as to distinguish them from camps, villages, and so on - as people living more or less permanently in one place in densities high enough to require the routine importation of food and other necessities of life. Thus a Tolowa village five hundred years ago where I live in Tu’nes (meadow long in the Tolowa tongue), now called Crescent City, California, would not have been a city, since the Tolowa ate native salmon, clams, deer, huckleberries, and so on, and had no need to bring in food from outside. Thus, under my definition, the Tolowa, because their way of living was not characterized by the growth of city-states, would not have been civilized. On the other hand, the Aztecs were. Their social structure led inevitably to great city-states like Iztapalapa and Tenochtitlán, the latter of which was, when Europeans first encountered it, far larger than any city in Europe, with a population five times that of London or Seville. Shortly before razing Tenochtitlán and slaughtering or enslaving its inhabitants, the explorer and conquistador Hernando Cortés remarked that it was easily the most beautiful city on earth. Beautiful or not, Tenochtitlán required, as do all cities, the (often forced) importation of food and other resources. The story of any civilization is the story of the rise of city-states, which means it is the story of the funneling of resources toward these centers (in order to sustain them and cause them to grow), which means it is the story of an increasing region of unsustainability surrounded by an increasingly exploited countryside.
This is what RSFOutzen@Geestkraker concluded from these texts and other sources and his own knowledge and instinct:
The Romans were the ones who coined the term civilization rather arrogantly, while they saw their 'civilization' as the Greco-Roman 'civilization', while they defined especially the Celtic as well as other "wild" tribes as 'barbaric'. The Greek coined the term barbaric simply derived from their word for gibberish. Those wildlings (yes, coined by Game of Thrones), whether North African tribes, Celtic, Germanic, Slavic or other tribes were Barbarians according to Greco-Roman civilization because of the way they lived. Dirty, primitive, weird gibberish language. As I said this was particularly arrogant, because Celtic tribes, although not organized in Cities or City States like the Romans and Greeks and even the Roman Empire's main adversary Carthago, they were as technologically advanced or even more advanced in fact. This is the closest I can think of in known Earthling history where a culture was both spiritually *and* technologically superior to their main adversary. The Celts or Gauls were not top-down organized like the Romans. To outline it for the readers simplistically and in order to cultivate their imagination: The Celts were wildling freefolks where both genders often train in the use of chainmail, longsword, big shields and horseback riding, however did not use the same top-down organized troop formations the way the Romans and Greeks did.
The Germanic people who resided more or less in what today is Northern Germany, Denmark, and southern Norway and Sweden - as I understand it - were in awe of the Celtic culture. Their sympathy was with the enemies of Rome. I may be depicting a romanticised view of the Celtic-Germanic culture here. It certainly was not perfect. We know that Stone Henge was used for ritualistic executions and they had in-fights the tribes in between. The infighting was used to the advantage of the Roman Empire that slowly ground the Celtic/Gaulish tribes and supplanted them with 'civilization'. Even though the Roman Empire fell apart it survived as the Frankish Empire in the 8th century, the Catholic church as well as the following European Empires, especially the 'British Empire' (read: the English Empire).
They all inherited this definition of Civilization that paved a road to a separation between the 'civilized' humans and nature with various incarnations as religious, dualistic or materialistic foundationalist beliefs.
Civilization however falsely believes that Civilization is inherently advanced compared to those 'primitive' wildling societies. Especially in its inception this notion must have been highly questionable when the contemporary Celtic Druidry was comparatively technologically (as well as spiritually) more advanced. And as we can learn from the mentioned texts, Civilization is actually very primitivistic, inherently negative and self-defeating like cancer.
The Celtic Druidry was an example of an early Animization (a term I coined from the latin word anima (spirit)), where people are not separate from nature and must respect nature's governing rules in order to not pave a road to self-defeat like a cancer.
I enjoyed reading Derrick Jensen's Engame that, although his views have been described as 'primitivist' by some, I think he effectively 'proved' that it is civilization that is primitivist rather than primordial animistic societies.
Our imperialistic culture has caused us to associate technology with advanced society and associate civilization with advanced society, thus technology is falsely associated with civilization by primitivists and others who are ignorantly infected by the very foundationalist beliefs and unrecognised circular logic cultivated by the very same civilization.
However when we recognise that Civilization and its history as a self-serving, self-deceptive lie, we might remember that Technology simply is a word from Greek from the unison of τέχνη (skill or craft) + -λογία/-logia (study), thus the science of craft. As outlined in the preface of Eugene Halton's text, "[humans] are wired to marvel in nature, and this reverencing attunement
does not require a concept of God. Marveling in nature proves to be not only a motive source of human evolution, but key to continued development" and thus technology, the science of craft, is this inherently technological animal's natural extension of behaviour, if Earthling humans were not so stupid and inclined to being stuck in foundationalist beliefs.
I would like to outline how and why the science of craft must be applied to society rather than the science of exploitation and deception as we have it now.
Modern 20th and 21st century Civilization has evolved to depend on the science of exploitation and deception (as also outlined in Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman's Manufacturing Consent) against which we must rebel (overcome by replacing) through reason, teaching of the spirit, the science of craft - everything applied to society. Even if it will take hundreds of years to achieve, which may well become the case.
Karl Marx and Adam Smith alike as well as many other thinkers did try to outline a way to overcome the exploitation of man by man. Karl Marx et al called one stage socialism in which 'the workers control of the means of production'. Although I will not advocate for polit(r)ics, we should not out of hand dismiss decent attempts at overcoming inherently indecent behaviour by the Masters of Mankind (as defined by Adam Smith). Karl Marx and other socialists wanted to apply the new 19th century trends of 'evolutionary biology' to society and suggested that 'the workers control of the means of production' was simply a natural inheritor of the then current stage of society which was also the natural inheritor of feudalism. I do not think their approach was unreasonable, quite the contrary. And although Karl Marx was not right about all his predictions, some of them have become 'true'. He did not know that in his future Lenin would misuse his ideas for his own gains, make them his business and create yet another form of exploitative State Capitalism falsely called Socialism or Communism. Nor did he know that Liberal Democracy's version of State Capitalism would be so creative in its application of exploitation and deception onto the masses. Yet he was predictive in them being inherently unstable and liable to 'crash'. All prophetic words, even if recorded as written texts, will get misused by certain types of people for their own gain. Especially if lacking in a more advanced and thorough understanding. Also certain individuals will always take advantage of popular ideas and corrupt them for their own gain.
A US-American economist by the name Thorstein Veblen wanted to correct Karl Marx et al with his Evolutionary Economics which he coined after Charles Peirce's Evolutionary Epistemology as well as (like Peirce himself) after the evolutionists Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace.
It may very well be possible to learn Karl Marx and correct him through the scientific method, as Karl Popper also wanted. Indeed, all ideas should be reviewed at their merit and corrected through the scientific method, i.e. the creative-evolutionary model. It may be sufficient to learn from Thorstein Veblen and where he connects to Charles Peirce's Evolutionary Epistemology and where Technocracy connects and derives from Thorstein Veblen's Evolutionary Economics.
Sadly the Technocracy movement relied on logical positivism rather than fallibilism in their approach to science, but since all human beings do in fact learn because they have this creative capacity (abductive reasoning, the spirit), all science is still science at some level and should be reviewed at their merits (neutral-positive) and never just dismissed out of hand (foundationalist belief).
Technocracy Inc. has a history and stored knowledge that needs to be dug up and preserved. Their organisation still exists and I would wish that people that have connected themselves with the spiritual teaching and/or understand its basics would seek out an education by Technocracy Inc. (especially if they live in North America) without missionising anything about the spiritual teaching (also we should never missionise either way).
Combining the spiritual teaching, Charles S. Peirce's Classification of the Sciences & Pragmatic/Animistic/Druidric/Creative-Evolutionary model and what Technocracy Inc. can teach about physical economics would be very beneficial if not crucial to the goals of PSI. The most important part here *is* the spiritual teaching, but I would hope people would be quicker to learn since they have hopefully taugh themselves to become more logical in order to pursuit other learning.
Technocracy insists that a real economy is physical and thus is one and the same science as ecology - thus that study belongs under the physical sciences in the pragmatic model of the classification of the sciences. So even if Technocracy lack in understanding the science of the creative human spirit that the scientist depend on, they are accurate in their critique of mainstream 'economics' which frankly is less scientific than theology.
Technocracy is a North American incorporated organisation because they needed to secure their information by protection and attempted to do that through the law. I guarantee you that FBI did try to infiltrate regardlessly in order to spy. Technocracy however is *not* a political party and even denies citizens membership if they are also members of a political party, whether Republican, Democrat, Communist or Fascist. Nor do they seek violent revolution in any form or way. They are purely an organisation in pursuit of educating the North American public, which may well be an overambitious aim.
But again, it is necessary for Post-Amerika to learn about Technocracy' and the preceding Technical Alliance's history and organisation from a neutral-positive non-ideological position to pick up what is needed to create a Technate in North America, if not all of America (spanning from Argentina to Canada). The physical area of Russian Federation already suffices as a Technate. So would Eurafrika (which would also include the Middle East, in my view). Ultimately the planet ought to be one Global Technate as the respective resources must be used to advance the interests of Humanity and not in order to advance the interests of a powerful elite minority. Second: The Technate through its complete understanding of both the physical and psychical sciences (and the basics of the spiritual teaching) must always respect the limits of nature as the only legitimate "dictator". The Technate cannot "exploit" nature in the name of Human 'luxury' and must always respect its limits.
The governing of a Technate is technical and scientific, and supposedly must have access to sufficient resources in order to properly operate a non-monetary system; it is not political - after all politics is not necessary and only an educated public will know and understand when there would be any exceptions to individuals' liberty. After all the best governments govern the least. The only way the society can be democratic is if technology and the means of production are under the effective control and surveillance by the masses. So every individual must have access and overview of everything a Technate does, without necessarily being authorized in the respective areas of the Technate (it is obviously necessary to think hard on ways to prevent any group of people from seizing power over the public). Another common wisdom is that a democracy is a free market of ideas where free market should not be confused with capitalism. I assert that the only legitimate copyright is 'intellectual' property. Otherwise it is public property in a society where means of production and technology are under the effective control of the public themselves. Within such a society they have a rightful physical share for their respective fundamental needs.
Inside a Technate it would still be possible to maintain various cultures, especially on an overpopulated planet where it would be necessary to control internal migration. These exceptions to liberties would be understood by an educated public.
Words and concepts of the Pragmatic Model to be learned (in order to correct both Technocracy and 'science'):
abduction
semiotics
epistemology
fallibilism
foundationalism
science
special sciences
Classification of the Sciences <- tl;dr
Words and concepts of Technocracy to be learned:
Technate and Proto-Technate
Technocracy
Physical economics
Energy Accounting / Energy credits
Price System
Urbanate
Other concepts to be learned:
Thermodynamics, biophysical economics, thermoeconomics, ecology.
Classification of the Sciences:
www.ecosia.org/search?q=Classification+of+the+Sciences
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_the_sciences_%28Peirce%29
A tl;dr of Classification of the Sciences.
www.textlog.de/4257.html
Creation -> evolutionary love -> human spirit/ghost incarnated in the biochemical ghost-machine -> abductive reasoning -> science -> science of craft -> science of craft applied to society