The following is taken from a collection of e-mails that occured over the past two months. The words are provided anonymously because we prefer that the ideas expressed be evaluated as they stand without any authority given to who may have generated the words. Because of the nature of how the communication took place, ordering the expressions was a bit difficult. As a result, there are many jumps and changes in direction. Hopefully the benefit of the sharing of these communications outweighs these shortfalls.

We hope that you enjoy what you find here and that you are moved to participate in and contribute to a continuing discussion in this important area.

New submissions should include:

From my point of view we (humans) as well as other beings are SPIRIT enfleshed. This makes our "nature" divine and spiritual. That we haven't lived up to this nature in no way discounts that this is indeed our true nature. We can choose to bring it forth and more fully express it at any time.

IMHO the first necessary step towards change is accomplishing a collective goal through interaction on the internet. My personal preference is a cooperative web server.

What would be involved in a "cooperative web server"? That doesn't mean anything to me.

As to creating and controlling ... it is the CONTENT that matters most, not the background service on which it is hosted. If you want to be distinct from the ISP, you can always apply for your own domain name. Then your pages all show up under www.mydomainname.com

Perhaps we would need a domain name and a connection to some sort of backbone so it is a local call for most people. Who pays for the domain name and how do we decide what that name is? While I agree content is important, content continues our habit of consuming rather than participating. It raises the individual over the collective. People surf around, sampling this or that, taking responsibility for none of it. I see a cooperative site as an opportunity to take responsibility but the trouble with responsibility is no one wants it.

I wouldn't say NO ONE. I actively seek it. Though I agree that few take responsibility for anything.

What is your vision of what needs to be done? What responsibilities need to be assumed by the members of the collective? How does the collective decide who should bear particular responsibilities? Do people volunteer, and then the community votes from amoung the volunteers. Does the collective pay a salary to those who bear the responsibilities? It seems that if we expect people to give of their time and energy they should get some compensation. After all, they are doing more than their counterparts who just sit back and reap the benefits. Does this mean a tax should be levied so that the burdon is shared. And should it be flat or graduated?

For the collective site, how would this be managed? Should anyone be allowed to put anything at the site, or should this be controlled? By whom should it be controlled? If we allow many people to access a single account, then TRUST is involved that the individuals won't do anything destructive like deleting other files or posting files with the same name as files already at the site.

We could use a two step process. Use one site for uploading new files and then have a webmaster move files from the public upload site to the controlled official site. This requires some site management, but not necessarily that much.

If we use forms to obtain inputs, then we could keep inputs "anonymous". Inputs would arrive as text in e-mail messages and would need to be put onto web pages. A selectable menu could be used for routing inputs. Or multiple forms could be used for different types of inputs. These could be sent to special e-mail accounts.

Much depends on exactly what kinds of things you want to be able to do ... and you want the collective to be able to do.

I would hope a cooperative web site grows into a political party. The internet empowers us or gives us the opportunity to empower ourselves and that's the rub. We talk the talk of democracy, but don't want to walk the walk.

Hmm... I' still not sure I buy democracy as the answer. But, I'm interested enough to support the effort because I think the kinds of tools you need are very similar to what I see as needed for the infrastructure of a community.

It means we must develop a way to vote on line and we must develop a way for the computer to filter inputs so that the same idea is posted once. We also must strip names and addresses of posters from their post, to eliminate the impact of the individual ego on the conversational string. The idea is to make a discussion among hundreds or thousands practical.

Interesting. But I have never felt compelled to vote in my entire life. I see no need to do so via the internet either. In fact ... I'm not sure that I buy the concept of a democratic society. It is not at all clear that the masses know what is in their best interest.

What purpose is served by having a discussion with so many participants? It is not clear that seeing so many inputs from that many people would be beneficial.

If everyone posts whatever they want no matter what has been posted, you get something unwieldy like some newsgroups.

True ... but even if you do some filtering, how do you keep the discussion on track so some useful purpose is served?

Not surprised you don't trust the mass.

I trust SPIRIT expressing through us. I don't trust that the masses of individuals consciously know what is in their best interest of even care for that matter.

Negative collective imagery there. Don't know if you ever heard of Arthur Koestler. He wrote liberal novels in the 50's and 60's. He was in his seventies when he committed suicide with his much younger and quite attractive wife. He wrote a book about a Communist who become disenchanted with the cause, in those days memories of the thirties was stronger. The book is called "Darkness at Noon" In it the disenchanted communist (Koestler was a communist for a while-I am talking Russian type communist party with cells etc.) discovers to his dismay that he spent a good part of his life working for a better society not because he loved his fellow men, but because he hated them. The book is seriously dated and I don't recommend it, but I remember the line.

Hmm ... interesting. It seems that Stalin played the most important role in communism failing to live up to the idealism that surrounded its birth in Russia.

I suspect you are a rugged individualist, Libertarian perhaps, many computer types are.

Not even close. More like pure communist. I believe there should be a SOCIAL contract ...

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR ABILITIES, TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS.

Sounds like you might be interested in equality and utopia.

Very much so. Though "equality" really needs a practical definition that recognizes that individuals have very different talents, abilities, needs, and wants. It doesn't mean they are all entitled to the same thing.

There we have a common basis. Except I would add that there must be a social contract that explicitly defines what is expected from individual by the society and in return what the individual can expect from society.

When you deal in equality, everyone expects and gets the same thing.

I'm not sure I buy this. There should be a minimum standard that all have access to. But I see no reason why people should not have a discretionary budget that they can choose to apply wherever they want. If they use that to improve their shelters ... so be it. If they use that to purchase entertainment, such is their choice. If people are willing to work harder and provide more service to society ... they should receive fair compensation for their efforts.

Why? and how much? Is Bill Gates really entitled to all those billions for ripping off CPM? According to a PBS show they gave CPM's author a chance to climb on board, but their lawyer objected to IBM's disclosure agreement and that was that. Suppose it was original. What's fair? What the traffic will bear? Your point of view is hierarchical. These aren't issues in an egalitarian society.

Hmm... Interesting, but I'm not so sure that we can indeed make such "missteps". Whether it is technically possible is only one issue. The larger issue is who directs the Play in which we are engaged. Spirit or the ONE consciousness is the director ... at least from my understanding. She decides what will happen when, not us. Yes, this appears to violate the idea of "free will". However, that does not bother me, because I am not aware of truly having conscious free will anyway. But, I do believe that at some level we create and are completely responsible for all that we experience. I just think it is the "spirit" part of us that performs that function and that we have little to no conscious awareness of exactly how it is done.

I do not believe in spirits controlling human destiny. God may exist or not. Neither extreme is defensible. We just don't know and there is no point lumping our ignorance into a ball and worshiping it. If there is a God I don't think he or she will hold it against us if we get our act together. On the other hand, maybe not. There is the old saying-those the Gods would destroy, they first make happy

I don't know that we have ever really had a representative democracy in this country. For the most part, I don't consider the current government representative at all. It clearly does not represent me in any way.

You are right, but what is the alternative? A small group who supposedly knows best or the population as a whole. I choose electronic democracy (true democracy) because there is no satisfactory alternative.

I found Plato's Republic quite attractive. I definitely like the idea of enlightened philosopher kings guiding the way.

My sense is that such a group would have a far better chance at figuring it out than the masses. However, that does not make the group elite in any way. It only means that they are best suited for performing this function.

The "mass" is just a very large group. My point is every individual has to decide for themselves - make their own mistakes if it comes to that. I do not want a group that sees itself as best suited for performing this function to make decisions which I must live with. I can't understand your problem with the entire collective making decisions which effect the collective (and therefore the individuals within the collective). I prefer that to a small group, however enlightened.

Hmm... that does seem to be the case unless those at the top are hit with a dose of enlightenment that results in their operating in a manner that truly serves society rather than just controls it.

I suspect you expect the spirit will hit those at the top with a dose of enlightenment. Hasn't done it so far, but as one who lives in hope, I cannot fault you for doing the same. I think my hope more reasonable-you disagree. That's the human condition.

The issue though, is the balance to be struck between individual and collective. Individualists see the collective as having no rights, no right to mandate recycling and no right to restrict the individual's use of his property. If you want to destroy a thousand year old tree, you may see that as no one's business but yours. I favor everyone's right to say what they want- I oppose all censorship, but I see the environment as everyone's business. No individual has the right to damage it.

Agree. SOCIETY, the collective has rights that outweigh individual rights. It can dictate the rules under which individuals shall operate.

I find those who would change the world each have their theory which they see as the one road, with no patience for alternatives.

Hmm... Here I am open. The infrastructure needs to facilitate the social contract as stated above. But within that there should be abundant room for creative expression ... expression that encourage and support various alternatives.

To fix the balance I see no alternative to electronic voting with no action taken except by consensus. That should answer your concerns. I chalk your concerns about your unseen fellow men and women up to negative collective imagery.

Most people fear being dictated to by the mass (collective) and I don't see how you can do that without voting unless you believe some exceptional people must be put in a position to dictate beneficial rules. Don't like that idea even a little bit.

In voting we are not dictated to by the collective. We are dictated to by the people who influence the legislation and who pay to support it via contributions to various candidates and advertising ... typically corporations or special interest groups. And the bottom line for whether something passes or not often comes down to the level of funding applied to "buy" the necessary votes.

Most issues are far too complicated for the average individual to form a reasonable opinion of whether it is in their personal best interest, much less in the overall best interest of the collective.

I have no confidence in a democratic voting process as a means for deciding what is best for society. I wouldn't ask the cells of my feet to do the work of my brain. In the collective, labor and expertise is specialized. When you poll for consenses you eliminate the benefit gained by the specialization.

I'm not sure the cell analagy is appropriate, but I favor democracy because I see no alternative. Are you a closet totalitarian? Who, in your scheme of things, decides what is best for society?

My sense is that SPIRIT should decide these things operating through self-aware and self-actualized individuals working together.

As for your concern about on line discussions, I concede it may, at first or always, be difficult to keep some people on track. It is essential that we devise a meaningful way to communicate with each other. As things are now conversational threads become too unwieldy to be practical, but that may be because right now it is all talk and no action. When the conversation has the purpose of doing something, we may consider what we say more carefully. You want a better society? It means risking and hoping.

YES. And being willing to participate and DO SOMETHING ... not only as individuals but in a concerted manor with people working together to achieve things they cannot do alone.

Hmm... we have a COMMON challenge there. It is extremely TOUGH to get people to COMMIT to doing things. It is hard enough to even get them to provide feedback.

We have to begin somewhere and the beginning must be small. If I could think of something smaller, I would. On the one hand you want people working together-on the other you don't trust the mass.

I want people working together because this kind of social change cannot happen by individuals working alone. However, my sense is that small groups of the right people are what is necessary to begin. Just any people will not do. Further, with too many, nothing gets done effectively.

I trust SPIRIT to express in the manner necessary to get the job done effectively. I just don't see that happening through the masses. The bulk of power today is wielded by a select few ... for the most part by people in positions that were not granted their positions by the people. Further, these individuals are not beholden to the people for their power. Many are the Captains of industry and their fate is set by the rules of free enterprise and the influencing of legislation that impacts their ability to generate profits.

These seem inconsistent. Am I missing something?

I'm still learning in this area. I've operated alone for all of my life and have never voted or been involved with the political process at all. Most of my ideas come from my own brand of "common sense". I've been an outside observer much of my life. Only recently have I determined why I am here and that executing my mission will require finding and cooperating with others.

We seek to exchange what for what might be, and since we are caught in the middle who pays and who is paid seems relevant. I prefer an army of unpaid volunteers, but the decision depends on the collective. My vision need not be everyone's. When I suggested to the fellow who runs the New Earth Network that changing the world was not a for profit operation, he disagreed. His dream was to make lots of money which he uses to help the less fortunate. I do not think he will succeed.

Hmm... I see money as the means through which we exchange goods and services within the collective. There should be a rich variety of goods and services and individuals should be able to select which ones they will consume/use. However, this only works if the value of what people give/generate is equal or greater than the value of what they consume/use. For this some type of contract is needed that clearly states what people must give and what that entitles them to get. This will be different for each individual. In this area, we simply are not equal. Abilities and talents are very different among people. Needs are very different as well. I've been struggling with this for awhile. I don't know how to resolve it.

Your thinking is wedded to today. We have a psychology of scarcity because money distinguishes the superior from the inferior. Were we to have a psychology of abundance everyone could get what they want when they want it. This is utopian thinking, but it is definitely doable. Were we to use the money (effort) we spend on defense to improving life style, all of us could do quite well in quite a short time. Unfortunately most of our heads are not in this place.

Abundance only works when people are willing to give at least as much as they take. That is what generates the abundance to begin with. If people could get what they wanted when they wanted it, without having to apply themselves in some kind of productive service, why would they work???

People might work because they believe in their community and desire to contribute to it. Why do you spend your time trying to create a better world? Not for the money, I don't think unless you are like the fellow who runs the New Earth Network who wants to make lots of money and use it to help people.

That's true. Definitely not for the money. That would make what I've done in the past few years worth a few pennies per hour.

And ... if you saw how I live, it definitely does not map with a psychology of scarcity. Money distinguishes in that manner today only because the means we use to distribute the wealth/abundance permit what we currently have. To me, it is abominable that we have people starving in a country with a surplus of food. That is simply stupid. Also, the idea that we tolerate people who want to work being unemployed is stupid as well. Especially when there is so much work that could be done that would benefit society or the collective.

I might add, you confuse equality with identity. We are not identical, far from it, but we are equal in the sense that we live and die and what we do in this life doesn't matter all that much.

Disagree. What we do in this life makes all the difference in the world. It is the reality we experience. What does equality mean to you? Within the collective, how specifically would equality be expressed?

What we do in this life does not matter in the infinite scheme. It matters to us whether our time is happy or sad, but the Donald Trumps, the Bill Gateses, et al will die like the rest of us, and while they may make a contribution that gets their names chiseled in some university buildings, those too shall pass. That is the reality of it. The efforts some of us make in life to be remembered are nothing compared to eternity. It does not diminish us to see one human life as no more significant than an ant's life. The idea is to have as nice a ride as we can manage. When it's over, it's over.

That is one possibility ... but not one that I choose to believe in. My bottom line understanding is that we never die. The body we happen to occupy may cease to function, but the spirit that drives it is eternal. No, not necessarily as a distinct individual, though it is not clear how or when individuality might cease.

When you say you do not choose to believe in here today gone tomorrow, you make a choice neither of us can prove or disprove. That we are here and conscious is improbable enough to underwrite any after life we can imagine. I prefer to deal with the here and now and leave the hereafter for later. We will know soon enough.

That's true. But it is also true about ANY beliefs. Things that are proven lie outside of the realm of beliefs. My sense of things is that the only way I can explain what I experience firsthand is by acknowledging that their is a large part of me that exists and operates outside this form. That part KNOWS things without my having to learn them in this existence. It is competant in doing things that I never had to learn.

I do not know if you believe in a hereafter. If you do and to you it's not over in the sense of some sort of after life, it will be a pleasant surprise. I'm talking about conscious life as we experience it.

Hmm... I definitely believe that we experience many lives just as we wear different clothes. There is to much to learn for one existence to be it. Yes, conscious life as a sentient physical being. But, I also think we can experience conscious life as a sentient non-physical being.

One of the ideas we must change is the concept of parity among people. Is the person who paints a picture less a contributor that the fellow who writes a computer program?

Not necessarily. But clearly, the janitor in a company is not EQUAL to the president of the company. The compensation for their efforts should not be a factor of 1000 different, but it is not fair to make it EQUAL. Their should be extra compensation for bearing larger burdens and greater responsibility. Especially if the benefit to the collective of one's efforts is far greater.

Why does anyone need recognition for a greater contribution. Who decides what a contribution is. Does the president of Dow Chemical deserve his mansion for giving us dioxin? The issue is the balance to be struck between the individual and the collective. Everyone is entitled to do their thing to the greatest extent possible provided their thing does not harm other individuals or the collective. To that extent, we are equal even if we are not identical.

The bottom line is that right now, we let free enterprise decide these things ... and those who succeed or are at the top are not beholden to the collective in the least. It is not even clear that owners are that beholden to their shareholders.

The way things are, relative worth is fixed by what one can get others to pay. The leveraged buy out master, Henry Kravis, is, by that measure, worth far more to society than you and me put together. I believe membership should be by fee (say $10.00) and if more money is needed, more members are needed. To me it is important that no one have a greater investment than another. If someone is wealthy enough to want to pay more, it would be below the line and anonymous, but again, these are just my ideas.

Just to stay connected to the internet, the per account cost is $16/month, even more for many people. That only provides an e-mail account and simple internet access,

Disagree. There was no one to pass judgement over whether leveraged buyouts did anything constructive for the collective. All it did was reallocate money so that the short term gain was good. It many cases companies are far worse off for having gone through that process since in most cases, they had to increase their debt.

Leveraged buyouts caused a great deal of unnecessary pain. The pain was necessary if you are Henry Kravis and you want the money. Trouble is he didn't bear the pain.

But the current economic structure has no means for the collective to have a say in such matters. There is no one responsible for the general welfare of the collective ... for ensuring that people either cannot take action that causes such "pain" or that makes them responsible for the pain they do cause.

Also, price is not the same as VALUE. At present, things are very distorted. But that is an inherent problem with constrained free enterprise. Though unconstrained free enterprise might be worse.

We have a fairly unconstrained free enterprise and as technology becomes more powerful, it will get worse. I think turning genetic engineering into a commercial enterprise is as foolish as we have ever gotten, but as some people would put it, a buck's a buck.

Hmm... A $10 fee is NO COMMITMENT, and it is not enough funds to support doing anything. Something more like $50-100 a month is probably much more reasonable. We might reduce this by $10 for each hour of service an individual provides. Many people will find it easier to give of their time then their money.

Commitment comes not from the contribution, but from the individual. $10.00 per month is symbolic. I don't know if you've ever been in the army. I was drafted a hundred years ago, but they make you take a step forward into the army. By that step you agree to be bound by the army's rules, take orders, etc. I found it both effective and impresive. Don't underestimate symbolism.

Hmm... I was in the Air Force for 11.5 years. I never had anyone tell me what to do. I always assumed regulations were only guidance, not the law. I was tolerated as a free thinker and maverick.

Besides for the thing to work we need volume and we need to offer something not available elsewhere cheaper. The point of our service is not a PPP account but changing the world.

Right, and changing the world requires ideas and peoples time to act in accord with those ideas and to DO things that make a difference. I have not found it easy to move people to provide ideas or even feedback, much less a regular commitment of their time and talents.

Also, my experience is that I get the most done by myself, then in small groups. Whenever I've seen the group grow to over a dozen or so ... I've personally found it a waste of time. This is true not only at work, but for personal things as well. It also depends on what specialties are required to address the problem or task at hands. More complex problems may require more disciplines, hence more people. If the work requires more people, it seems to work best if it is partitioned into chunks that can each be handled by smaller groups.

As for collective decision making, I see voting as the only way. We disagree on this one and if you'd care to discuss your concerns, I'd be happy to try to answer them. I do not like the idea of an elite. The smallest acceptable elite for me is a majority of those entitled to vote.

Hmm... I have never voted and don't ever intend to. It matters not to me whether others agree with what I want to do. And, I don't give others the power to prevent me from doing it. My ideas will never be mainstream. They will never sway a majority. But they will attract enough people to create an infrastructure and services that benefit people. At this point it matters not how large the group is. It will start small, and then grow by demonstrating that it truly works. How long this will take to spread across the country and then the world, I don't know. But, I am moved to do it ... to create something that makes a real difference in people's lives ... something that allows them to express whom that they truly are.

Lots of ideas are self fulfilling or may be. You want to change the world but think your ideas will never be mainstream. Keep an open mind about voting and about other people. Your ideas may not be as farfetched as you think. The world changes with increasing speed. People may catch up to you.

Your other questions about site management would also be open to debate and collective decision making. I don't know how you feel about censorship -I oppose all of it, and a collective site has the advantage of spreading responsibility over the membership. If someone put pornography on the site we could (collectively) decide to permit it. If we did and the membership were large enough, it would confound the authorities. It is difficult to prosecute 10,000 people for the same offense. Of course we are a long way from that membership.

I don't believe in censorship either. However, in your true democracy a 51% majority would have the power to censor anything. Somehow the rights of the minority need to be preserved. Minority opinions must be at least tolerated ... or the collective will be closed to anything new.

That's true and it's a problem, but I think we have a greater problem with censorship today than we would were everyone to vote. Electronic technology gives us the power to satisfy everyone. We can have fully open areas and protected areas. No one need tell anyone what they can or cannot read or say. It also gives us the power to turn anyone off. If you decide you don't want to hear from me, you can tell your machine to turn away anything with my address. As far as you would be concerned, I would no longer exist. We literally create our own world.

However, by having "protected" areas we sanction classification and information hiding. The collective then must make its decision based on partial knowledge. One of the biggest problems that I see with our current government is that so much information is classified.

There is also an issue of "right to privacy" to consider. What information should be "private" and how should it be safeguarded?

Turning people off is not so simple. It is very easy to change addresses and names used on the WWW.

There is also an issue of how we disseminate information. If everyone has accounts they might be free to generate whatever they want when they want. But, unless it is disseminated ... nothing happens. If everyone wants to disseminate their ideas to everyone, there is too much information for anyone to be able to deal with it much less act upon it.

The solution is some type of infrastructure that serves to make the appropriate connections between people, allowing individuals to find areas they are interested in and link up with others of like mind to discuss and then to DO things.

Much depends on exactly what kinds of things you want to be able to do ... and you want the collective to be able to do.

It is not what "I" want to do. As I mentioned. This came up the few times people expressed an interest in the idea. They wanted to join something I created. I want to belong to something "we" create and the more the merrier, but I haven't the foggiest as to how to get it off the ground.

OK, but we need to start somewhere. The easiest place to start is by creating an place where ideas can be exchanged ... anonymously or without sources attached if that is what you want. But someone has to want something. The collective speaks through the voices of individuals.

I agree to a point. There are plenty of discussions on newsgroups, mailing lists, etc. We need a goal, a purpose, and a way to achieve it. We need something that attracts people willing to participate, something that can end with political power.

Propose a set of goals and purpose. From that we can put a page up to solicit feedback and other inputs. From these we can add to and/or modify the goals and purpose to make them collective goals and purpose. Then, we can look at options for ways and the means required to accomplish them. It all starts from having a purpose and set of goals that people will personally accept and commit to work towards.

My suggestion of a web server is one way to get us to interact, to decide.

But what specific issues or actions need to be decided on? The web server is just a tool. Exactly what it needs to support is dependent on the issues and actions that must be decided on, and the kinds of interaction necessary to effectively make the decisions.

That is what "we" need to do. We need to change the way we make collective decisions. "We", that is everyone unhappy with the way things are, must join together to create something different.

How many are "unhappy with the way things are"? Somehow I think that would be far less than 50% in the US.

I am not "unhappy" with my present circumstances. However, I am moved by a knowingness that the world could be a far better place if we build better infrastures the support individuals being whom they truly are and expressing that in a manner that benefits both the individual and the collective.

Hmm... I'm still not sure I buy democracy as the answer. But, I'm interested enough to support the effort because I think the kinds of tools you need are very similar to what I see as needed for the infrastructure of a community.

I've run into concern about democracy before. While I don't know the basis for your reservations, most arguments boil down to Tory arguments against representative democracy in 1776. The mass can't comprehend and isn't interested etc. It requires a change in the way people see their connection to the collective and it requires people see the collective as non-threatening. That's not how it is today.

Hmm... I guess it is primarily that I personally don't live my life democratically. Nor do I see any reason to start to do so. If democracy doesn't make sense to me on a personal level, why should I believe it makes sense collectively?

The point is to let you be yourself to the greatest extent possible. We seek diversity, not uniformity and democracy offers the greatest chance of that. If you lived in today's Russia or a great many other places your choices and chances would be far more limited.

OK. Then in what specific ways is the current system in the US preventing this from happening right now?? These would be the areas that are in need of change.

As an aside. Take the Green party or parties. They pick Nader who acts like he doesn't want the job of winning people to the Green party. Why not try to make the Green party an electronic party where decisions are made on line instead of by party leaders? Don't know any Greens, but there is great promise there.

Hmm... but isn't the whole point of having a representative government that it allows a small group of individuals to focus their time and energies on the issues and matters at hand and represent the interests of their constituency? This frees individuals from having to apply their time and energy to these matters, allowing them to pursue things in which they are more interested? Those who care enough to be involved will always find a way.

Representative democracy doesn't work. It's the problem, not the solution. We need a nation of concerned, caring individuals. You may want to sit at your computer all day and not think about collective issues. Part of the gratification is not being responsible for collective mistakes, but there is no getting around it. If "we" don't like what congress does, "we" must do it ourselves. There's no alternative.

Agree regarding concerned and caring individuals. I can't think of any issues that require every individual in the collective to care about in a personal way. Why have 200 Million people concerned about something a few hundred can analyze and decide effectively. Besides, look at the farce with all the measures and propositions on the ballot. Most are too complex for me to decide on, much less the average person who may only catch the paid political ads.

As to representative democracy working, it seems to me that the whole benefits when the parts specialize and each optimizes how it performs its functions. Forcing additional functions on parts not suited for them doesn't serve the collective or the individuals involved. Then again, perhaps you have some examples where it would.

Actually, I think about collective issues a lot. And, I feel a responsibility to spirit to do things that make a difference in people's lives. It is one of the tasks I believe I came to do. However, if I musician, and creating or performing music captivated my soul ... then why should I not fulfill my place in the collective by doing what I love to do? Why should I have to pay attention to things that don't matter to me personally? Similarly, if I'm a farmer, and I love working the land, why should I not be able to just do that.

Regardless of whether mistakes are made by the collective as a whole, or by the government that represents us, or by the "private" commercial sector that provides goods and services, WE pay the price for EVERYTHING.

You say choosing is an ingredient of all beliefs which is true. We choose what we believe. You choose to believe voting is not for you or the better world you envision and I think as long as you believe that it will be true for you.

Perhaps. But that doesn't mean that it is not an important means for decision making in the collective. I personally have not thought about it enough to have an idea of where it should be used. My personal choice of not voting thus far in my life has been based on a sense that nothing on the ballot has any meaningful impact on my life. Who's in office and what, if anything, they do ... does not affect the way that I think, act, and live.

Good you seem to be reconsidering. Representative democracy discourages. I was a representative once, a member of our town's Board of Finance. I was well meaning, but the one time a referendum matched the public will against my vote, I was wrong. My vote was based on my perception of what the community wanted. When I voted in the referendum I voted with the majority, the opposite of how I voted as a representative.

That attitude is beginning to change now that I want to be involved in taking action to create a better world. However, I don't know yet to what degree government and politics will be involved in fostering the dramatic social changes that are needed.

Again, I am not sure what you mean by necessary social change. I think nothing short of a classless society will do it and to that extent the entire collective must be involved. We tend to see government as different from ourselves because "we" don't run things. There are the bureaucracies set up by representatives as well meaning as I was. Social change cannot divorced from politics. It will happen when enough want it sufficiently to take action.

As for proof, sometimes when we talk about the external, physical world, we bring things into that narrow band where our senses are accurate. Kant used the collective perception to prove the accuracy of our senses. If twenty people see a tree and describe the same thing, we can be sure our senses are accurate.

OK. But, if twenty people see an accident or a crime, they often see twenty different things. Each person only captures a snapshot, and these snapshots often have major differences. I don't but that my senses are that accurate. I know firsthand what can happen from the side effects of the drugs I have had to take for my bipolar condition. From this, I know that I cannot count on what I perceive to be accurate. Further, our scientists know that our senses distort the world that we see. Our eyes are highpass filters. They accentuate higher frequencies corresponding to edges and movement because it is a "useful" way to perceive information in the world. It allows us to function better than if we saw the world exactly as it is.

Agreed the senses are inaccurate even when they attempt to perceive the physical world. When beliefs describe something we do not see, heaven, hell, or sub atomic particles they may be complete fantasy or incomplete. i.e. One might expect the lessening of the earth's mass by burning fossil fuels brings the earth closer to the sun, but perhaps a larger gravitational mass lies behind us and draws us further away. We do something, then experience the consequences, most of which we are too ignorant to anticipate.

It is a different matter to describe black holes in space. The further we get from the physical world, the more suspect our conclusions.

Yet, in my opinion, the most important area where we should understand ourselves is in the functioning of our minds. And here, for the most part we seem to have little clue. Further, it is not clear that all the scientific exploration in the world is going to give us any real understanding of how it operates.

Sure, but we can never "know" in any scientific sense. We do studies and decide people are inclined to choose merchandise in blue boxes rather than red boxes, but fears and foibles are different. I think self image psychology says it best. We are what we think we are and we fear what we are afraid of. It's simple, some would say simplistic, and it's optimistic in that it assumes that since we control what we believe, we control who we are. There's no alternative except despair and believing cannot change anything.

My point is that most of what we believe, even when it relates to the physical world, is a matter of opinion.

AGREE COMPLETELY! But, since that is the case, its value should be judged by its utility. Do the beliefs serve us, do they empower us, do they make our lives better, easier, and happier?

We agree we want a better world, but you seem to think one can be created from hierarchical, capitalistic systems. I wonder if you could clap your hands and bring about the society you envision, what would it be like?

I am not sure hierarchical is a term I would use. I think society should function like a body with an infrastructure that supports basic needs of the collective, and organs(groups) that are responsible for performing specific functions for which they are suited by their natural abilities and talents. Specialization and focus has enabled us to do a lot of things that more primative societies could not do. I see nothing wrong in this.

The body is a good example. Different individuals have different talents and abilities, but is the heart worth more than the brain, the right arm better than the left? We are different, but we must see ourselves as equal, no matter what we do

As to what the economic system should be ... I have no fondness for capitalism. The economic system should SERVE the collective, just as the government does. Though, at present I would not say the government does this well either. However, it seems that at present the collective is the slave of those who control the economic system. In many cases, these are international companies that do not even bow to governments ... much less to the collective.

However, to its merit, capitalism has at least allowed for the generation of a variety of goods and services that do make life easier. And, overall, most people are able to consume these goods and services.

I see capitalism as meanspirited, selfish, and foolish beyond measure. An item in today's or yesterday's Times reports that Freon is now smuggled over the border with Mexico in amounts that rival ilicit drugs. People need it for older automobile air conditioners. No matter that it destroys the ozone layer and no matter that the present refrigerant will eventually be found to do the same thing. They change it so tests on Freon don't apply. Smugglers are not bad people. They would probably prefer to picnic with their families, but it's the easiest way to make a buck and they do. The African elephant herd is endangered because ivory figurines, though illegal, provide livelihoods to people who are truly poor.

Unfortunately, capitalism, as it is currently practiced does not distribute wealth very evenly or fairly. Differences of 3-4 orders of magnitude for an hours worth of labor seems extremely unjust to me. However, so long as the economic sector remains private and "free enterprise" is practiced without any explicit social obligation, it is unclear how this will change. It seems that the collective should have leverage. We can refuse to allow companies to operate in our market and sell to us unless they abide by the appropriate rules, operating practices, and principles that we the collective set. In the current environment, that would require boycotts and the like.

What is really needed is a New Constitutional Convention, one that has a broader scope than just the government. It scope should be the overall welfare of the collective, including the social contract between individuals and the collective, the government, the economic system, the education system, and the health care system.

Perhaps eventually, but right now we cannot create a cooperative web server or something even smaller. Things grow. They don't usually burst forth full bloomed, although they sometimes do. A bloodless revolution against the Shah of Iran happened one day. It may be we can have a Constitutional Convention on the Internet, but I don't think we're ready. I'd like to discuss the same idea on a smaller scale-how a group of people can discuss and decide things on the Internet. I have no doubt the group will grow with success, but first we need a group.

Collective image psychology is unforgiving. We are responsible for what we think including what we think of ourselves (individually and collectively).

At an overall level this may be true. However, at a conscious level it is definitely not true. I have no clue as to how the thoughts that come into my mind are generated. I am not aware of being their creator. Yes, I experience them coming through me, however, this alone does not make them mine. In this respect, my brain is a receiver, much like a radio or a television. Personally, I am not aware of where the programming comes from. If there is indeed a part of me that is creating all of it, then I still have a long way to go in knowing myself.

We have no one to blame but ourselves for whatever happens. It contains the possibility of change, which is good, but it is so difficult (impossible?) to change closely held, negative beliefs, we may need a different generation and there may not be time. It will be close.

Hmm... beliefs will change when the time is right and not before. It can happen literally overnight if necessary. And, I don't believe this change will belong to a different generation. For over 20 years, since my last year of High School, I have known that this was a task for my generation. Interesting, I don't think I've met anyone else that was certain that this is indeed our task.