"Thanks for listening to The League of Nerds podcast, I hope you enjoyed it!
Looking back, I don't think that I made my reason for leaving TZM clear enough in the podcast, so I'm writing this letter to clarify it a little bit.
First of all, I do not have any personal problems with people in the movement (except for a dislike of Peter Joseph, which I will clarify in this letter). Many of them are good people who want to make a positive change in the world and I have had some good times with other members of the movement.
My problems with the movement began when I started to train my skepticism about a year ago. I began to feel a bit alienated from the movement, because many of its members promote a lot of pseudoscience. I also began to see problems with the official material, namely the first and the second movies. Before you say "the movies, especially the first one, aren't the movement", think about A) why all three movies officially are a trilogy? (1) and B) why the second and in some cases the first one is used to promote the movement (many chapters still give out all three movies)?
For me the case is clear.
In the beginning I tried to shake it off by saying to myself that "the end justifies the means" and focus more on using science. I made TZM posts, to bring some balance to all the pseudoscience promoted by other members.
Eventually I had enough around the time where a former prominent TZM member, Matt Berkowitz, got his video about scientific literacy (2) removed, because some TZM members didn't like it and Peter Joseph, who controls the movement, cares more about keeping the peace amongst a largely pseudoscience-supporting membership than about scientific accuracy.
So I signed his letter of concern (3) about pseudoscience and conspiracy thinking within TZM and decided to leave TZM for good a few days later.
Instead I began to focus my energy on being an active skeptic, especially on social media and mostly in Danish, due to a lack of Danish skeptics.
As I mentioned before I dislike Peter Joseph (PJ), which is because of his very unscientific views and censorship of Matt Berkowitz. Despite what is claimed, PJ has a lot to say within TZM and he is definitely the most prominent spokesperson for the movement, giving most of movement's interviews and authoring most of its official content. The movement claims to promote "scientific method for social concern", so I find it troubling to see the most prominent spokesperson actively promoting pseudoscience, like the Burzynski alternative (unproven) cancer treatment (4).
That's another reason why I can't promote TZM, as the institutional label of TZM is inextricably linked to pseudoscience in public perception due to all these issues..
Thanks for listening and thanks to Myles and James for having me on."
Hey everyone, this is a long overdue critique that I have been wanting to make for a few months now with regards to my current stance on The Zeitgeist Movement; and while after being an advocate for the past 4 years I unfortunately had to withdraw from officially endorsing it.
When I say 'officially' what I mean is, is that I still broadly agree with many of the concepts that TZM puts forward.
a. I still think our current social system has inherent problems and is environmentally unsustainable
b. That there are forms of social organization outside the prevailing order that are both desirable & possible
c. And I also agree that we should move towards an evidence-based method of decision making that is backed up by the best peer-reviewed evidence available.
These are all sound positions in my view.... The problem is that while TZM advocates these ideas in theory, it doesn't actually appear to promote them in practice and as a result I have become increasingly skeptical of it as an entity in being able to achieve its stated objectives. Concurrently I have also noticed more muted issues with its organizational structure as a whole which I will also be addressing in this critique.
It's funny, it's almost like many of the criticisms I have received over the past few years from naysayers have almost suddenly 'clicked' with me and I now look at the movement in a whole different light with a focused lens for the first time, seeing many of its blatant flaws. I was always aware that TZM had its problems but I always believed that as long as the we stood firmly by our principles, The Zeitgeist Movement still had something of value. This all changed for me a few months ago however when controversy erupted over a video by Matt Berkowitz posted on the official TZM Channel. It was an attempt to increase science-literacy within the movement in an attempt to disassociate TZM from many of its more dodgy foundations which were tainting the movement. It was also an opportunity to give people the intellectual tools in order to develop their critical thinking skills. Afterall, mass social change requires the
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Matt Berkowitz | How to Know What's True: Assessing Scientific Research | The Zeitgeist Movement https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Tc0_NulJx0 --------------------------------------------------------------------
participation of the masses and therefore, we have to have faith in the ability of people to decide things for themselves and come to correct conclusions. Having a methodology such as science and giving people the ability of people to be able to think for themselves is what separates a successful movement from an irrational mob-rule. Unfortunately many of the topics that Matt criticized in this video such as -- Anti-GMO, Anti-Vaxxers and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth -- didn't quite go over well with many within the movement who still dogmatically hold onto such viewpoints despite the scientific literature saying otherwise. This eventually culminated in Peter Joseph deleting the video as well as several other videos featuring Matt, overriding the decision of the General Chapters Administration which democratically decided they should stay up. The entire fiasco was disheartening and ultimately made me question my continued participation with TZM. I will now begin my criticism of the movement by addressing 3 main points about why I no longer agree with it.
#1 Flawed Foundations & Lack Of A Unified Direction
Given the roots of The Zeitgeist Movement, with the Big-Bang like explosion of Zeitgeist: The Movie and the wider internet counterculture -- there is an unfortunate propensity within the organization for it to be kind of a 'catch-em-all' for every alternative theory going. While there have been attempts by TZM to distance itself from the first film, its influence can still be felt to this day and is generally most people's first introduction to the movement as well as its main generator of interest. Despite gaping holes with the content of the film, Peter Joseph has also never fully repudiated it, lending credibility to it by default, and usually pointing to his 220 page source guide as definitive proof of its validity. In a bizarre statement on The Zeitgeist: Movie website he states....
"To debunk Zeitgeist: The Movie is to debunk this guide. This has not occurred. In fact it is technically impossible to do so in such a context....It is important to point out that many who claim to have 'debunked' this or that are really often working from the standpoint of debate for the sake of a wanted external perception. In other words, given the nature of semantics and interpretation, many can twist and manipulate points to fit what could be perceived as a viable argument or refutation while, in effect, they are really just denying data, creating a strawman or simply lying"
I would honestly like to agree with the claim that "the movies aren't the movement" but no one can deny that the association with the first film is hurting TZM, risking it to be permanently associated with it - not to mention the fact most of its core members still accept most of its claims and routinely hand out DVDs at recruiting events. The purpose of "the movies aren't ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Why I Left The Zeitgeist Movement by Matt Berkowitz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAs47_9Rep0 3. General Q&A http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/qa.html --------------------------------------------------------------------
the movement" argument is more about turning attention away from the conspiratorial elements of TZM and attempting to minimize the role the series plays in forming the overarching worldview that TZM promotes. I find it somewhat doublespeak-esque, and in my opinion it's a bit of a weak cop-out to avoid difficult lines of questioning. Following the release of Zeitgeist: Moving Forward and the Zeitgeist Movement Defined book, there was a hope that this would diminish the influence of this tendency by bringing a focus towards a coherent understanding of what TZMs goals are in the present. However, a cursory glance on any TZM Forum will show that discussions about conspiracy theories, new-age sophistry, alternative medicine, pseudoscience and many similar topics are still a prominent feature within the movement. Of course, I think healthy debate about ideas should be welcome in any movement. Different perspectives should be encouraged, valued and a general principle established, that any angle is up for discussion, as long as the quest for knowledge is the common goal. However if TZM is to achieve its objectives there has to be some kind conceited effort to bring about a consistent message from its members regarding what TZM actually stands for. Rather than being unified under one ideological banner, TZM instead resembles a cluster of divergent movements -- even members advocating positions that are actually counterintuitive to their aims such as promoting the idea that Global Warming is an elitist plot to bring about a New World Order. As long these types of voices are allowed to roam freely within TZM there is a profound risk that they will ultimately corrupt the goals of the movement, rendering it ineffective. This is evidenced by the removal of Matt Berkowitz's video which was essentially the best representation of the movement's alleged goal of 'applying the scientific method,' yet taken down because the prevalence of pseudoscientific thinking and an inability to combat it has ultimately trumped the movements original objectives. Consequently, it also alienates the scientifically literate members of the organization and as these types of members start to dwindle, I fear TZM which will gradually start to decline into an cult of conspirituality for the politically disillusioned. If TZM wishes to stop this backwards trend, I endorse Matt Berkowitz's letter where he states....
"There needs to be more quality control: both within the administrative body of TZM (for example, the Global Chapters Administration) and within public speakers for TZM. This may be accomplished by enforcing some sort of science competency / critical thinking test as a prerequisite for participation."
People without field-specific competence are in positions to decide which projects get pursued and which tools are used. Nothing resembling a peer-reviewed process exists within the current practice of decision making in TZM.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Expression of concern about TZM's infrastructure and public image: pseudoscience and grand conspiracy thinking abound https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rnQszjUBv81AaXYXe-b_7SAwAFtpx6tIvObje_c8I-A/edit --------------------------------------------------------------------
This leads me to my second point of criticism...
#2 Peter Joseph & Leadership Accountability
I have a certain amount of respect for Peter Joseph. For the most part, I think he is a relatively intelligent guy and his lectures & documentaries certainly brought me a wealth of interesting information that started me on a journey to where I am today. However, there are some serious issues with him that need to be addressed.
Whether people like it or not, Peter Joseph is essentially the de-facto face of The Zeitgeist Movement and as a result people tend to use him as a benchmark of what to believe rather than applying true skepticism and critical thinking. There really is no leadership accountability as he essentially controls official TZM material and will evidently just delete things he doesn't like, even if there is a consensus that it shouldn't be. For all the talk about 'ego' and 'identity' in relation to dogmatic belief systems, PJ is also possibly the worst-case example I have seen of someone who doesn't actually like their viewpoints being challenged. He makes liberal use of the block button on facebook by silencing dissenting opinions -- both from his personal page and the official TZM page -- who give any kind of criticism to ideas he promotes. Evidently, this has been a longstanding issue since 2008 on the original TZM forums and his troublesome behaviour has influenced many to abandon the movement for similar reasons over the years. Whether intentional or not he effectively creates a 'closed ideology echo chamber' where information, ideas, or beliefs are amplified or reinforced by minimizing constructive criticism of various facets of TZM and Peter Joseph. It also gives the impression that Peter Joseph is incapable of being incorrect. I don't know how many times I have heard the phrase "Even Peter Joseph agrees with this..." as if this somehow counts as a legitimate argument. He is more concerned with appearing to be 'right' than actually being useful, and probably does more damage to the outside perception of the movement than he realizes.
Alongside the usual stuff like 9/11 Conspiracies he has recently been actively promoting the work of Stanislaw Burzynski as an alternative cancer cure supposedly being 'suppressed' by Big Pharma. The Burzynski treatments are not accepted by medical science, and not approved by the FDA. With no peer-reviewed literature to support his claims, Burzynski of course opted for the next best medium to show why his cure is credible in the form of two crappy documentaries made by Peter Joseph's brother, Eric Merola who also uses false DMCAs to silence anyone that criticizes the work of Burzynski. It's unfortunate that Peter Joseph has went from claiming that we should accept scientific evidence over personal opinion, to now thinking people are 'Science Nazis' when the evidence stands in stark contrast to what HE thinks, and using provocative language to foster mistrust to people who disagree with him. This contributes to the noted problem I mentioned earlier of ideological divisions within the movement in the form of promoting false understandings of how the scientific method actually works and hence justifying belief in pseudoscience and other allegedly 'suppressed' ideas under the simplistic notion that the market corrupts everything.
In relation to Matts video, people got so butt-hurt over the topics he touched upon rather than paying attention to the underlying reason he made the video in the first place -- it was to help increase critical thinking in TZM by pointing out common pitfalls people make in arriving at certain misguided conclusions. In deleting this video, Peter does the movement a great disservice by essentially getting rid of a valuable resource that could help everyone reach their own conclusions from the best evidence available, instead of just blindly trusting something "because this is what Peter Joseph thinks..." It also brings into question the idea that TZM is indeed a 'leaderless movement' and that anyone can make their own content under the Zeitgeist name. Say for the sake of argument I made a movie called "Zeitgeist IV: Total Refutation," and it was essentially a point-by-point debunking of many of the inaccuracies and dodgy sources Peter used in his first two films. Such as approvingly quoting Charles Lindberghs speech supporting US Isolationism in World War 2, when in reality he was just a pro-Nazi, Anti-Semite. Or for example, omitting the fact that the Jeremy Daly case he sourced in Zeitgeist: Addendum when opposing the Federal Reserve was actually 'nullified the next day on the grounds that Justice of the Peace did not have the power to make such a ruling.' This film would not be made as a personal attack on Peter, but rather an honest pursuit towards truth and a way of ultimately bettering the movement by making a clear distinction that TZM has indeed moved on from the film series. What do you think would happen to me? Lets be honest, I would almost immediately be excommunicated from the Zeitgeist Movement, all my admin rights removed and I would guess Peter Joseph would probably follow in his brothers footsteps to file some kind of DMCA against me for using The Zeitgeist name. There is absolutely no way that my own personal content, at odds with the official P, would be allowed to stand under that name.
#3 They Don't REALLY Do Anything
Creating a better world is not just about giving people a documentary to watch, a book to read or an expert to listen to -- it's about empowering people enough so they can affect change in the real world. The problem with The Zeitgeist Movement, is that despite efforts to educate people about the root causes of various issues, it just sort of provides people with utopian-porn
and doesn't actually provide much of a plan of how to arrive at such a system. While the idea as a whole is firmly rooted in a kind of Anarcho-Communism, it is very much what Engles' refered to as "armchair socialism" in so far is that it will never be implemented. TZM is noticeably missing from various mass-demonstrations as it seems in many cases to actively dissuade people from fighting the same institutions it claims to be against such as encouraging people not to bother protest anything, ease problems within the current system or engage within the political system at all, due to the fact that all problems arise from the same root-cause of market capitalism, therefore what's the point? While I understand where this line of reasoning comes from, it is kind of a false dichotomy to say that we shouldn't really bother doing anything within the current paradigm until we arrive at a Resource Based Economy. We can still try to do our best to bring about incremental change that may be stepping stones towards a better society. Unfortunately, it's just not possible to wish a new society into existence; it has to be built patiently by the collective co-operation and organized resistance of the masses. We have to build towards a new society in the present, by showing people we can make concrete change in areas that affect their lives NOW and in doing so, winning them over to the more radical ideas of social revolution. Most TZM members just sort of sit around waiting for a magical utopia to be appear, something to the effect of 'waiting for the system to collapse, and then we can introduce people to a Resource Based Economy.' The problem with this strategy is that historically, system collapse has almost always lead to the rise of far-right populist groups such as was the case in Weimar Germany when extreme hyperinflation and 6 million people unemployed led to the Nazis coming into power. While they are rightly critical of institutional politics as the main driver for fundamental societal change, to dismiss 'politics' per se from the equation as they do is somewhat naive. History teaches us that the ruling class will never give up their power without a fight. They will never willingly surrender control, it needs to be taken from them via revolutionary struggle. Zeitgeist Movement fall into the trap of believing that if we just educate enough people on a resource based economy governmental institutions will eventually 'come on board' with the project and voluntarily adopt their egalitarian plans as they presented a more rational society and economic system. I believe this inactive problem was best summed up by the philosopher and political scientist Noam Chomsky, when he stated....
"I don't regard The zeitgeist Movement as an activist movement. Rather, it seems to me to be a very passive movement that is misled by doctrines that have a pleasant sound, but collapse on analysis. Among them is the idea that we should "stop supporting the system" and should not "fight it," that is seek to change and overcome it. That means that we should withdraw into passivity. Nothing could be more welcome to those with power. My feeling is that however sincere the leaders and participants may be, the movement is seriously misguided. It is not leading towards change, but is undermining it by encouraging passivity and withdrawal from engagement, and offering a false sense that some real alternative is being proposed, except in terms so abstract and divorced from reality as to be virtually meaningless."
Conclusion
At this point, given its dwindling popularity, declining activity worldwide, and the number of members who have left over the years; coupled with recent events which has once again caused many prominent members, including co-ordinators & people within the lecture team, to distance themselves from the movement -- I almost get the very real impression that TZM as an entity is sort of a failed experiment. This latest blow I think will really be felt, as most of the people who have distance themselves were essentially the backbone of the entire organization, keeping the whole thing together by trying to maintain the little credibility that it had left.
Zeitgiest Movement is NOT moving towards positive social change and may even be antithetical to it.
That being the case I would like to put forward the following suggestions to those who strongly believe in environmental sustainability as well as non-hierarchical forms of social organization, but who are still stuck within the Zeitgeist Movement
a. Vote For The Green Party: Now, I know there is going to be a collective sigh and rolling of eyes at those who read this, but look -- we are running out of time with regards to acting on climate-change and absent there being a revolution in the near future they may be our only political alternative at the moment that has a chance of making short term solutions. Besides, they have quite alot of sensible policies such as advocating for things like universal basic income & environmentalism.
b. Join More Established Anti-Capitalist Organizations: Libertarian Socialists, preferably.... join groups who are actually serious about challenging the status quo and have a decent enough framework of how to achieve it. I highly recommend the Anarchist FAQ http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html Also, check out Libertarian Socialist Rants critique of TZM here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SZT7MZop44
"As a basis for considering governance models the article was useful, although rather narrow in scope. Other
governance models to consider may include, but not be limited to: direct democracy, consensus democracy,
sociocracy, demarchy, panarchy, sortition and heterarchy. All of those can be looked up on Wikipedia for a
quick overview. Bashing out the pros and cons of each model might prove a fruitful exercise for determining
which model provides the most appropriate basis for our needs. From there onwards we may be able to
develop a model that is specifically tailored to the RBEM. Currently our model is closer to a benevolent
dictatorship with elements of feudalism than to anything else, sadly, and all is done to a highly unprofessional
standard.
Two issues here stand out to me:
1. In order to select an appropriate governance model we need to clarify what kind of entity we are - i.e. are
we a movement or an organization. Currently TZM seems to have an identity crisis - marketing itself as a
movement but trying to behave like an organization without the professionalism required to make that work. I
think that once a choice is made there we can tailor our governance structure to suit.
2. Presumably if we are to walk our talk and be the change (any other over-used kitschy phrases I should
chuck in there?) we should be implementing the governance model that would be used in the RBEM. In order
to do this we need to clarify what it is. Thus far we haven't really done that - although I have attempted to
raise the topic a couple of times in this group. If we aren't clear on the details of the RBEM economy,
governance and culture we can't exemplify that which we wish to create (and yes... I know it is stated in brief,
and speculated on ad infinitum all over the place... but there is no complete emergent design model).
The
system needs to be designed and clarified. Unfortunately Fresco's RBEM isn't a complete design - or at least
there isn't a full design that I have been able to find either by myself or through asking around. I have seen
complete systems designs from other organizations and nutted out the basics for the RBEM myself (I've
attached the PPT slides that accompanied my presentation at the QLD systems design studio earlier this year
- I've sent these out before but received no feedback - ironically I've received a lot of feedback outside of
TZM and this has got us places). What I'd really like for us to do is clarify all of these and then start
exemplifying our talk.
Okee - so - whatever this team decides to go ahead with I'm sure I'll have little influence. It seems to me that
some here are more equal than others, and 2 have bailed (Jen & Jason), leading me to speculate that this is not
a real core team at all as I am certain that they remain active and influential at the core.
However, I see it as worth pointing out that Integrative Services, the organization I co-founded along with 5
other systems thinkers (3 PhD's and a shit-load of scientific publications between them humbles me
massively! Our group is made up of: an architect-turned ethics-oriented systems designer; a geologist &
marine biologist who works in environmental policy; the creator of the Carrying Capacity Dashboard; the
creator of the world's first robust open-source knowledge repository; and another programmer... I'm the
education guide and do a lot of front-of-house stuff as what I lack in technical expertise I make up for in
communication skills when it comes to conveying the complexities to multi-level players...) has taken the time
to come up with our governance model before rushing into operations. We started with a sociocratic model
which leaves us room to breathe and work on our areas of expertise while coming together for consensus
regarding major decisions (major defined as those which impact others - not just our own workflow). At
present I'm beefing up the knowledge repository with some research into the various governance models.
Once I've extracted and shaved up the data regarding pros and cons (need evidence weighted for reliability for
each) it goes into the knowledge repository which crunches the weighted data and comes up with a suitable
answer to the question asked - i.e. what is the most appropriate governance model for achieving xyz? I explain
that stuff really basically because I really am not at all savvy about the techy side of the supercomputer :-P
Anyways - the point is we took 6 months (with several 3-4 day-long residential marathon planing sessions)
to come together and come up with a working model from which to develop. From there the original 6
co-founders were able to start connecting with others who are able to fill our skills-related gaps and assist us
with the physical infrastructure to put our model in the petri-dish, so to speak.
I would have loved it if I had received more positive feedback from TZM regarding this as I previously felt
that TZM should absolutely be involved in such ground-breaking projects. However, having received either
no feedback or negative feedback (along the lines of "we're not ready so you can't do it") I settled for just
getting on with what needs to be done at the pace I work at. I think it's past-time for TZM to really be able to
be involved as the team don't take us seriously (they take me seriously as they've experienced working with
me - but want nothing to do with TZM) due to our obviously malfunctioning half-baked system.
Anyways - regardless my obvious disenfranchisement with TZM and our current self-defeating structure I
will share the model Integrative Services have been working with in order that this group can at least have
some food for thought to take on board. You'll do with it what you will. Anyways - the following is the
approach we've used for systems design and implementation:
T - Threats
I - Interests
M - Metaconstitution
E - Ethics
S - System/s
----------------------
P - Policy
S - Strategy
O - Operations
The Threats stage involves collaboratively establishing consensus regarding what universal threats
humanity faces. This seems pretty straightforward, but you'd be surprised (perhaps) to see how many
discrepancies can arise due to worldviews that are not identical from one person to the next. Arguably
TZM has made assumptions regarding these, but gone through no same-paging exercise.
The Interests stage involves collaboratively establishing consensus regarding what universal interests
humanity shares. Again, this seems pretty straightforward, but, again, you'd be surprised (perhaps) to see
how many discrepancies can arise due to worldviews that are not identical from one person to the next.
Arguably TZM has made assumptions regarding these, but gone through no same-paging exercise.
The Metaconstitution stage is where it all starts to get really interesting. This stage involves
"metaconstituting" in preparation for constituting - meaning consensus is attained regarding participatory
principles such as appropriate rules of engagement, metacommunication, priorities-setting, etc. I can
provide the working document we've developed for this upon request. TZM has not attempted this stage,
instead making assumptions and setting some protocols and procedures, which are often broken by those
who set them. I have attempted to address this with the GCA and global core, but to no avail.
The Ethics stage forms the basis of a constitution, as, arguably, ethics must be the foundation of the
principles of any system. Again, there may be assumed consensus regarding ethics, but it is an area where,
in practice, many differences become evident and consensus isn't necessarily easy to reach and cannot be
taken for granted. I occasionally mention this philosophical concept here in the core team, but it's never
addressed.
The System/s stage is, for me, the most fun part - designing a system (or "systems-corrective" measures to
address threats and interests) based on all of the above. The system obviously has to address all universal
threats and interests, and be rooted in ethics. With a working metaconstitution the design of this system will
be possible to achieve via consensus, although this cannot be a rapid process and will forever be
improved upon via the knowledge-repository feedback-loop. Now, TZM has not gone through this process
at all, but adopted TVP's RBE, arguably without clear comprehension on the part of all involved -
including Jacque Fresco - as to what the design of a whole system requires, and how to go about it. I fear
we've been somewhat lazy in taking this all for granted, and have attempted to address the need for
same-paging the system with this core team... again to no avail.
OKee.... so I guess that's a lot of information for now, but there's more....
The Policy stage refers to what happens after the systems design - i.e. designing appropriate policies to
ensure that the system can function from a philosophical and governance perspective. This is the stage
many reformist groups that exist to address flaws in our political system are at. It is a vital step, but should
not be approached as sewing on a patch, instead being only really useful once the T -> S stuff has been
addressed. TZM tends to gloss over the need for this, misunderstanding policy as partisan politics and
governance... and replacing it with nothing really...
The Strategy stage refers to planning the logistics of how the required process and infrastructure, etc, of a
system could be transitioned toward and implemented. Again, TZM misses this stage, rather blurring what
is needed or just being vague, not recognizing this as a step at all or just "leaving it up to the experts" like
TVP, who haven't been through this stage either.
The Operations stage refers to the actual infrastructure - the design and implementation of whatever is
needed - both in the techy and non-techy senses. TZM are not at this stage and do not consider that we
are capable (although PJ perhaps has some ambitious plans for the Global Redesign Institute -
presumably to redeem the Movement post-TVP by showing them "we can do it too"?), leaving it,
generally, to TVP - who are almost entirely functional at this level despite having left out most of the
preceding stages (meaning that the likelihood of them having "the right answer" is slim and largely based
on chance).
Okee - so I guess it's pretty apparent that most established institutions of society are operating at the P-S-O
levels, and not appealing to anything from the T-I-M-E-S levels, meaning that they keep failing to make
meaningful change due to having not addressed the most fundamental stages. This is what Fresco means when
he refers to "patchwork", although he makes the same mistake himself.
Anyways... where am I going with all this? Well I'd like to see this process incorporated into a Wiki so that anyone
joining such a project can actually go through these stages at their own pace, in collaboration. A Wiki provides a
platform for engagement of this sort that doesn't hold back those who have already collaboratively completed
parts of the journey whilst facilitating an un-rushed staged journey for newcomers through the gate. It also
provides a vital feedback loop, meaning that we don't have to treat the process as linear, constantly refining
each stage based on what comes up from its subsequent stages, and so on.
in what I call an "Integrity Challenge" (see third attachment for stages of integrity development" - would love
some feedback on that, as well as the other 2 docs).
Okee... I think I've talked enough for one day and have work to get back to...
Looking forward to some feedback/questions/engagement emerging from all of the above.
Cheers & take care"
