An end to steer by, and a means by Michael Allan

Michael,

Years ago, I ran a successful consulting service that helped author an organization's story with the objective of the story being to encapsulate culture, tradition, goals and aspirations that would rally both insiders and outsiders. So, your idea of steering with a myth intrigues me to no end. I would love to find a way to make your idea real.

Inventing a story so "convincing it becomes immortal" is easy to say, however, than do. The easy part I found was the history if it was well documented and recent. The future was another question altogether due to one overriding consideration: The different places different people were coming from - this seems to be the same as what you imply in seeking "consensual norms." We tried all sorts of voting patterns to build consensus but, while everyone agreed on the very far long term, the closer we looked the more the differences. Your legislative example seems to depend on a majority agreement and may work but we were seeking 90% agreement.

While I totally subscribe to your idea of a myth steering, almost automatically, to an acceptable future, I am concerned about its implementation. Any concerns on the implementation of your model?

I look forward to your comments on my essay here.

- Ajay

Thanks for the explanation, Mike. I'm glad if my comments were at all helpful. I would love to talk more about this with you. I don't have time right now, but I hope we can pick up our conversation some time in the future.

Best,

Robert

Michael,

" An end to steer by,...

The material principle of the theory (M0, Table 1) follows almost directly from the two premises: while the laws of nature (P1) enable rational beings to assure themselves of a continuous existence, as opposed to extinction, that same continuity would also be necessary to fully develop and realize the supreme value (P2). So we take that continuity as the material end of morality. Here we are treating morality as a purposeful, constructed facility on which the full weight of our most cherished value may come to rest. Thinking like engineers, therefore, and wary of failure, we must now design a structure to bear that load."

Guess then I read too much into what you were writing. Sorry.

Regards,

John

Hi Michael,

I know you're waiting until you have an opportunity to comment on my article again and rate it. You will see that I'm putting the following postscript on everyone's page, so I thought I would also share it with you. It is especially pertinent in your case because you're the expert on voting systems. (That was my favorite part of your article so far, I really learned a lot.) Have a good one.

Warm regards,

Aaron

P.S., I will use the following rating scale to rate the essays of authors who tell me that they have rated my essay:

10 - the essay is perfection and I learned a tremendous amount

9 - the essay was extremely good, and I learned a lot

8 - the essay was very good, and I learned something

7 - the essay was good, and it had some helpful suggestions

6 - slightly favorable indifference

5 - unfavorable indifference

4 - the essay was pretty shoddy and boring

3 - the essay was of poor quality and boring

2 - the essay was of very poor quality and boring

1 - the essay was of shockingly poor quality and extremely flawed

After all, that is essentially what the numbers mean.

The following is a general observation:

Is it not ironic that so many authors who have written about how we should improve our future as a species, to a certain extent, appear to be motivated by self-interest in their rating practices? (As evidence, I offer the observation that no article under 3 deserves such a rating, and nearly every article above 4 deserves a higher rating.)

Michael,

"(M0) Morality purposes the endless continuity of rational being"

Rationality is a process, of decision making, not a stable destination. Proposing it as the highest good also assumes good as a form of unambiguous ideal. While our religious and cultural models treat good and bad as some form of cosmic dual between the forces of righteousness and evil, they are actually the biological binary code of attraction to the beneficial and repulsion of the detrimental. What's good for the fox, is bad for the chicken and there is no clear line where the chicken ends and the fox begins. Then, like computer programing, lots of these binary choices add up to the larger reality. Not only are there many shades of grey, but all the colors of the spectrum exist between black and white.

So then when we get into a rational process of decision making, what might be a good at one level, even lots of goods added together, can equal a bad on another level. Such as when we have an economy based on growth in a finite ecosystem, the result is a bit like those bacteria racing across the petri dish. If you were to really pick apart the decision processes people make, they chose that which is beneficial to themselves, because if they didn't, someone else would take advantage of the opportunity.

As you recognize, top down proscriptions and prescriptions don't work, but simply inspire people to want to keep climbing to the top to be in the position make such judgements, so it does have to be some form of bottom up decision making process. I just think that; One) we need to recognize there will always be winners and losers and if there was a sense that losing a conflict wasn't terminal, nor winning one absolute, then it would be a more organic process, in which the layers of options and results tend to settle to their levels, rather than a mechanistic result, where a one, or a few winners dictate to the rest.

Also; that the only real end result that matters is maintaining a habitable planet. I think the entries advocating for extra-terrestrial solutions really don't have a firm grasp on the realities of the size and inhospitality of relatively empty space. We haven't been back to the moon in half a century and are mostly cluttering up low earth orbit with a lot of junk.

Regards,

John

PS, Here is an interesting essay, comparing eastern and western logic.

Dear Mike

I am very pleased with your suggestion and would be very grateful if you give me another translation to recognize the shortcomings that I have made.

I did see copies of your text - I would love to look forward to establish a regulation for your future and especially: "Maximizing PERSONAL FREEDOM: Necessary Inventions" - you'll find it at "The Optional" in my essay.Attachment #1: 1_NHIM_V_BT_BUC_V_GII_PHP_TNG_TH_CHO_TNG_LAI.pdf

Mike,

I've now read your essay a 3rd time and must admit I still struggle to genuinely understand your thoughts (the 1st was speed reading so doesn't count as yours is as immune to skimming as mine).

I somehow miss the jump from the limitations of c to populating the stars (all of which I agree with) and also reliance on myth. As an astronomer I'm very happy with concepts of distance and light speed limitations but I use the word myth quite often to describe current paradigms of astronomy and physics which we require to shed, so I myself suffer subconsciously from omnipresent preconceptions.

From seemingly (to me) more pragmatic and empirical foundations I've produced a conventional paper on a cyclic galaxy sequence and cosmology the evidence of which, if studied carefully, implies a very long term (infinite in fact) cyclic process of re-ionization and renewal where we have and will constantly be turned over and mixed with fresh material as garden soil and plants. I'd like to feel morality in one iteration influences the form and intelligence of the next sentient being any one of our brain cells may next become part of (after part of countless billions of suns and rocks between).

But only myth supports such a hypothesis. I wonder if some complex proton oscillation patterns may hold information of previous cycles? - It's really only a better evidenced 'multiverse' theory, but those who hold more mundane myths may well sent the men in white coats to drag away those with different myths! I wonder which sounds more credible to you?

Best wishes

Peter

Mike,

I've now read your essay a 3rd time and must admit I still struggle to genuinely understand your thoughts (the 1st was speed reading so doesn't count as yours is as immune to skimming as mine).

I somehow miss the jump from the limitations of c to populating the stars (all of which I agree with) and also reliance on myth. As an astronomer I'm very happy with concepts of distance and light speed limitations but I use the word myth quite often to describe current paradigms of astronomy and physics which we require to shed, so I myself suffer subconsciously from omnipresent preconceptions.

From seemingly (to me) more pragmatic and empirical foundations I've produced a conventional paper on a cyclic galaxy sequence and cosmology the evidence of which, if studied carefully, implies a very long term (infinite in fact) cyclic process of re-ionization and renewal where we have and will constantly be turned over and mixed with fresh material as garden soil and plants. I'd like to feel morality in one iteration influences the form and intelligence of the next sentient being any one of our brain cells may next become part of (after part of countless billions of suns and rocks between).

But only myth supports such a hypothesis. I wonder if some complex proton oscillation patterns may hold information of previous cycles? - It's really only a better evidenced 'multiverse' theory, but those who hold more mundane myths may well sent the men in white coats to drag away those with different myths! I wonder which sounds more credible to you?

Best wishes

Peter

Mike,

An endless continuum is either the absolute, as in a flat line, or infinite, where all the positive and negative curvatures, waves, forces, actions, etc. eventually cancel out to that flat line.

Rational behavior is expressed as a force. For the individual organism, or what functions as an individual, like an ant or bee colony, rational behavior is to last as long as possible and propagate as widely as possible. Normally this action is balanced by conflicting activities in the environment, so the various such wave actions do not overwhelm the context with any one action. The situation now is that one species, us, has managed to reach the point where the wave action of our collective rational behavior threatens to splash much of the useful water out of the tub, leaving significantly less resources for our descendants to play with, which is not conducive to the endless continuum of our existence. So the question now is how to move to the next level. After thousands of years of 'going forth and multiplying, do we develop that sense of internal balance and express our forward momentum in ways which are not overly destructive of our environment.

In the context of your thesis, what are the ideas we start debating and collectively deciding. I try to focus on one particular aspect of our collective function in my entry.

Regards,

John

Dear Michael

I thoroughly enjoyed your essay which was so well constructed and written that I do not have any real criticism.

In the introduction to my essay A Space Age on Earth , I, too, mention the function of myth making and the decision making process as it relates to the perception of humanity's place and purpose in the universe. "As knowledge increased though a process of making finer and finer discriminations about the nature of reality, the prevailing models of understanding were consequently modified or replaced by newer ones in order to have a more precise and believable explanation of where we came from, who we are and what is our ultimate purpose." AND "When Earth was perceived of as the entire universe it gave rise to myths and religions that continue to permeate and influence society into the present time."

I found that your essay eloquently describes this "age old" process and I especially liked your concluding section: "Forever retelling the myth: the material practice of rational being" where you write:

"The future of humanity is necessarily of mythic construction, our ultimate existence hinging on our ability to invent and evolve a story so convincing it becomes immortal." Bravo!

Interestingly, your diagram on page 7 (Figure 8 ) reminded me of another "knowledge/myth" conceptual diagram from a previous epoch that is embedded into the American Indian medicine wheel symbol - a circle divided into quadrants by a central cross which also happens to be the Greek astronomical symbol of the planet Earth - the globe with equator and a meridian.

The image can be seen here. A symbol I also incorporate into The Space Option logo.

As shown, the four equidistant points representing (N/S/E/W) as well as (Mind/Physical/Emotion/Spirit) are located on the circular diagram representing a conceptual decision making process that proposes to bring harmony and balance into the processes of life:

1. DECISIONS lead to...

2. ACTIONS which influence our...

3. EMOTIONS which then influence our ...

4. VALUES which in turn influence our...

1. DECISIONS and so on.....in perpetuity

I intuitively felt this graphic depiction of ancient knowledge and the associated processes relates well with your more contemporary construct as both relate to "steering the future of humanity".

Looking forward to hearing more from you in the future and with best regards,

Arthur

Dear Michael!

I found your essay title interesting conveying something similar message to be considered as I'd tried to point out to that in my essay.

I've not yet been able to read it over with perusal and taking a deserving comment.

However at the first glance, I welcome the 'morality principle', but I can a bit disagree with the further 'myth-making' and looking into the 'stars'. At least the phrases need to be reconstructed.

As far as, I also skim read your 'Votorola' about page (much in your essay an abbreviation from that - I find it very interesting and I will look at the software too, as an IT women also :) I feel, I'm able to understand your thoughts and concepts, however all is quite complex for first sight and even for non technical average understanding. (As I read above in some comment).

I'm also not sure the voting system can work well as negotiated someone's else sent me and written on your wiki page.

I'm ready to discuss with you further, but I find non-relevant doing that longer here. You can reach me the given e-mail in my essay.

I can further offer you an annotation tool(it works stable for me tested on Win8 ff28)

Kind regards,

Valeria

Michael, here is the annotation tool link

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/stickyplushighlighter/