It would appear that Mr. F. Mann's promising debate on the Neuro-Semantic
Political Illusion Complex (NSPIC) is attracting the same kinds of flak from
Big Brothers intellectual gladiators as was received by a similar new
enterprise started about one year ago by Eberhard E. H. Weber. My thoughts
at that time were astonishment at the vicious opposition to open debate, and
concern that we may be, as a nation, too far under the Neuro-Semantic
Political Illusion Complex to save our selves by means of open public debate.
In that case, we will get a Master.
Here is the best face I could put on the problem a year ago.
WesBurt
~~~~~~~~~~ Begin year old note ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subj. The Common Public Interest
Date: 97-01-15 15:40:52 EST
From: WesBurt
Dear Subscribers to List <ws1@mundicausa.org> and others:
In the four days since the list owner and founder, Eberhard E. H. Weber,
distributed the kick-off essay for this workshop on Sat. Jan. 11, 1997, we
have been treated to an impressive demonstration of how public opinion can
be directed toward preserving the status quo and away from all constructive
dialog on essential corrective actions. In other words, we are watching a
demonstration of how to "divide and conquer" a nation.
There has been a torrent of high noise level mail to the list on two topics,
and both topics force the reader to torture his imagination to find any
relation between either topic and the purpose of Mr. Weber's essay,
INFRA-HUMAN DETERMINANTS OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR.
Topic # 1,
Mail asking to be removed from list <ws1@mundicausa.org> seems to have
no other purpose than to persuade the watching public that the list owner is
a questionable character who has packed his distribution list with addresses
purchased from some direct-e-mail sales organization. Those unfortunate,
with too little intellectual curiosity to watch the start-up of a new
enterprise for
a few days, should consider the words of Oliver Cromwell to his opponents:
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, consider that you may be mistaken."
And then, if they are still certain that they subscribed to this list by
mistake,
they could push their DELETE buttons until they learn how to unsubscribe,
instead of mucking up the mailboxes of all other subscribers who knew what
they were doing when they signed on.
Topic # 2,
Mail, "Re: Option Space concept expanded," that mentions the NASA space
program as a potential cure for our social pathology, seems to have no other
purpose than to divert public attention away from the purpose of list
<ws1@mundicausa.org> and away from the goals of the four day old
kick-off essay.
As I read that kick-off essay, it seemed to me that the author had leaned
over
backward to withhold his own ideas, and offer his subscribers a clean
framework
for dialog in which every avenue of approach to the subject was wide open.
The author of every new enterprise must keep a sharp eye out for signs of the
Not-Invented-Here (NIH) syndrome among his sponsors, employees, and
customers. But somewhere, sometime, somebody must propose a direction,
even a mistaken direction is soon corrected, in which the enterprise must
move
in order to discover the common interest of the public and the enterprise.
If the goals of this list are to be realized, the active contributors cannot,
like
the President's just concluded Commission On Social Security, propose three
solutions for correcting the one defect in our social order. The two
workshops
that are running concurrently, as they approach the top of the mountain from
opposite directions and come into view of the other group, must resist the
temptation to shoot at their opposite members in the other workshop. There
is
only one top to this mountain, and none of us will reach it, unless we see
the top as a broad level playing field, big enough for all.
Two questions popped into my mind over the last four days as I re-read
the various literature from the MUNDI CAUSA SOCIETY:
!, What are the significant advantages of using two task forces, two
commissions, two workshops to solve one problem?
2, Is there an advantage to developing a model for general equilibrium using
negative feedback, another model for the existing compulsive expansion
mode of the economy using positive feedback, and additional models for
different nations according to their unique attributes. Such an unlikely
economic expert as Pope John Paul II suggested that there is only one
model, for every place and time, when he wrote on page 83 of CENTESIMUS
ANNUS (on the hundredth anniversary of RERUM NOVARUM):
"A business cannot be considered only as a "society of capital goods"; it is
also a "society of persons" in which people participate in different ways and
with specific responsibilities, whether they supply the necessary capital for
the company's activities or take part in such activities through their
labor."
As a Protestant, my "need to know" takes me wherever the evidence leads,
so I am perfectly free to read Pope John Paul II's Catholic Literature, if
his
writings address my interests, which they do in this case!
Let me restate the second question. Could we save some time and labor by
looking at only one model? That is, a model like John Paul II's that could
move over the whole continuum, from equilibrium to the current Rat Race,
when the levels and polarity of feedback are taken as the independent
variables of the model?
If such a simple model catches the public's attention, those who oppose the
public interest in every shape or form will have to do the heavy lifting on
Public Policy from then on. No more "free lunch" for them.
Sincerely,
WesBurt
~~~~~~~~~~ End year old note ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~