Friday, February 24, 2017

A Call for a Needs'-based Politics,Rather than a Rights'-based Politics.

What's needed is a 'Needs-based politics' (ie Co-operative Socialism) rather than a 'Rights'-based politics' (ie any formmof managed capitalism = 'Social' Democracy = fascism (ie a collusion of 'elites' and states = eg the WTO, The 'World' Economic Forum, the Chatham House/Council on Foreign Relations/PowerCorp etc.

When 'I' wrote the 'Four Needs' essay (see the papers'section at www.interestfreemoney.org) there a) wasn't a needs-based Needs Theory and b) the overarching economic need (for income equality and equity - as adumbrated by 'The Spirit Level' - see www.equalitytrust.org.uk - and Richard Wilkinson's earlier books).

What we now know is that, for sustainability, happiness, health and properity for all, the world needs to move to a zone of maximum equality and equity - Aubrey Meyer's concept of 'Contraction and Convergence' (see lower down this page earlier this week).

I know that my distaste for Rights'-based Politics is going to elicit discussion, so let's leave my support and justifcation for the better option - Needs'-based Politics - to then.

Monday, February 20, 2017

The Big Picture: Chemistry, Sustainability and Economics

On 'my' Facebook page, I posted the following nonsense:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1214499648589099&id=861349470570787

My friend, Mavis asked if it was true. I replied as follows.

I think, Mavis​​ that the water is split into hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis (a process called electrolysis) and the hydrogen is then burnt in the engine.

Of course, the electricity has to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is almost certainly a fossil fuel source (oil, gas, coal, nuclear). Ideally, the electricity comes from solar panels. But they come from manufacturing that uses fossil resources in the main.
In addition, the electrolysis of water requires an added ionic material: sulphuric acid is used in school, demonstrations of the electrolysis of water, for example.

Overall, these 'magic' solutions are not the way forward.

First we need, in the global north-west to reduce our GDP activity (ie our capitalist 'economic' activity: the '' marks signify that most capitalist 'economic' activity is harmful and not beneficial to the  global household).

Secondly, that activity in the global north-west needs to include far greater income and economic equality and equity (the evidence in, say, The Spirit Level, is that more equal societies act more sustainably: partly because their populations have less 'need' for status bling).

Finally, the overall poorest countries need a) to not be hand-bagged by the global north-west's capitalist businesses (including ususry-based for-profit banks) and b) they need to be helped to come up to the 'contraction-and-convergence' sweet spot that is the dog-leg point on the GDP-vs-Wellness graph in The Spirit Level.

All of the above is, of course, in the plan for Co-operative Socialism!

Thursday, February 16, 2017

Letter to MPs regarding the plan for Co-operative Socialism

Dear Peter,


Letter text as requested.


(LAP comrades, Colin Bastin (LAP Chair) and Helen Watts (LAP Secretary Organiser cc'd)

--------------------

14 February 2016


From John Courtneidge


Flat 10 Coleridge House

79 Bromley Road

Beckenham, Kent BR3 5PA


MOBILE 0795 099 6418

E-mail for questions and MP Responses: courtj@myphone.coop


---------------

Dear Chartist editor


Thank-you for publishing the earlier Chartist article on the plan for Co-operative Socialism: a plan that Labour Action for Peace, Occupy London and the Bromley Co-operative Party all support.


As a follow-up action:


Might Chartist readers care to join in an information gathering and sharing exercise among MPs, concerning the plan for Co-operative Socialism?


Below is a letter template to MPs in this regard.


I, on behalf of Labour Action for Peace, will correlate results (my contact details are also below).


Thank you, in and for co-operation


John Courtneidge (Dr)

-------- MP Letter template--------


[My name]

[My address and Post code]

[Date]

Dear                                 

MP for

Re: Plan for Co-operative Socialism

I write to you as one of your Consituents.

A number of groups (including, for example, Labour Action for Peace) now support a plan for Co-operative Socialism. Details of that plan may be found by web-searching the term "Co-operative Socialism" and navigating, for example, to the relevant Occupy London web-page and the papers' page of The Campign for Interest-free Money.

I write to ask if you support this plan.

If yes, will you promote it to your Parliamentary colleagues?

If, no you do not support this plan, could you please let me know why not?

Please note that your reply and that of Parliamentary colleagues (even non-replies) will be shared publicly.

Thank-you!

[Signed]
 

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

from Now to Peace and Sustainability


Some of you might wonder about the graphic (above), that I shared yesterday (5Feb 2017) on 'my' Facebook page and which I'll re-produced today (6Feb 2017, I think).

Here is its 'sister' image. 





This photo is a share from, and of, my/our FB friend, Barbara Hillman (and I hope she doesn't mind me sharing it). It exemplifies the serenity of 'peace, krder and good government' (to use that phrase from the British North America Act: the founding document for the, then, Dominion of Canada).

So, back to that image from yesterday.

It attempts to show the mental turmoil in each personality qudrant as people scramble around, tyrying to find the worm-holes of tansition.

And finding the blocking walls between some attempted transitions.

One (vertical) worm hole is that from the pride of the greens (the Ratioalists) to the groundedness of the blue quadrant.
The others are the pair close to the eastern-most point on 'the personality equator' which show the route/s from the turmoil of 'now', to the tranquility of sustainability and peace available to us as 'then'.

We are standing at those three worm-holes of liminality.

And woo-hoo 4 that!

-------------

Thx, again, Barbara Hillman​​! And my apologies for prior use of this without permission!


Friday, November 11, 2016

personality Types: attempted co-relation

And, finally, co-relating all this to the political map that I use for Co-operative Socialism

Eg at http://occupylondon.org.uk/co-operative-socialism-by-john-courtneidge/

And using 'JC' for the name labels that 'I' use (note that I use the colo(u)r scheme that's the same as True Colors (a matter of history that I'll relate in a while:

**However**!! Note that each of us is a blend of all four Types !!

*** And *** !! This is a work in progress - it may well need developing.

** AND ** A risk in all this is 'color bashing' - in that words and, therefore, labels can be *very* hurtful.

And, so, the following should be used with the foregoing in mind. I hope!

Peace!

I found the following, these words suggst, as a first go, that the co-relation of the Carol Ritsberger ('CR') and the True Colors/Personality Dimensions ('TC') is::

CR red = TC Gold = DK Guardian (which, on the four-quadrant graphic on the page cited is colo(u!)red Gold = JC Reactionary Authoritarians (JC/TC Gold)

CR orange = TC Blue = DK Idealist (Green on the graphic there) = JC Progressive Experientialists (JC/TC Blue)

CR yellow = TC Green = DK Rationalist (coloured Blue on that page's graphic) = JC Progressive Authoritarians (JC/TC Green)

CR green = TC orange = DK Artisan (that graphic colours this red) = JC Reactionary Experientialists (JC/TC Orange)

The Four Temperaments

Please Understand Me II, By David Keirsey, PhD Temperament is a configuration of observable personality traits, such as habits of communication, patterns of action, and sets of characteristic attitudes, values, and talents. It also encompasses personal needs, the kinds of contributions that individuals make in the workplace, and the roles they play in society. Dr. David Keirsey has identified mankind's four basic temperaments as the Artisan, the Guardian, the Rational, and the Idealist.

Each temperament has its own unique qualities and shortcomings, strengths and challenges. What accounts for these differences? To use the idea of Temperament most effectively, it is important to understand that the four temperaments are not simply arbitrary collections of characteristics, but spring from an interaction of the two basic dimensions of human behavior: our communication and our action, our words and our deeds, or, simply, what we say and what we do.

Communication: Concrete vs. Abstract

First, people naturally think and talk about what they are interested in, and if you listen carefully to people's conversations, you find two broad but distinct areas of subject matter.

Some people talk primarily about the external, concrete world of everyday reality: facts and figures, work and play, home and family, news, sports and weather -- all the who-what-when-where-and how much's of life.

Other people talk primarily about the internal, abstract world of ideas: theories and conjectures, dreams and philosophies, beliefs and fantasies --all the why's, if's, and what-might-be's of life.

At times, of course, everyone addresses both sorts of topics, but in their daily lives, and for the most part, Concrete people talk about reality, while Abstract people talk about ideas.

Action: Utilitarian vs. Cooperative

Second, at every turn people are trying to accomplish their goals, and if you watch closely how people go about their business, you see that there are two fundamentally opposite types of action.

Some people act primarily in a utilitarian or pragmatic manner, that is, they do what gets results, what achieves their objectives as effectively or efficiently as possible, and only afterwards do they check to see if they are observing the rules or going through proper channels.

Other people act primarily in a cooperative or socially acceptable manner, that is, they try to do the right thing, in keeping with agreed upon social rules, conventions, and codes of conduct, and only later do they concern themselves with the effectiveness of their actions.

These two ways of acting can overlap, certainly, but as they lead their lives, Utilitarian people instinctively, and for the most part, do what works, while Cooperative people do what's right.

The Four Temperaments

    As Concrete Cooperators, Guardians speak mostly of their duties and responsibilities, of what they can keep an eye on and take good care of, and they're careful to obey the laws, follow the rules, and respect the rights of others.

    As Abstract Cooperators, Idealists speak mostly of what they hope for and imagine might be possible for people, and they want to act in good conscience, always trying to reach their goals without compromising their personal code of ethics.

    As Concrete Utilitarians, Artisans speak mostly about what they see right in front of them, about what they can get their hands on, and they will do whatever works, whatever gives them a quick, effective payoff, even if they have to bend the rules.

    As Abstract Utilitarians, Rationals speak mostly of what new problems intrigue them and what new solutions they envision, and always pragmatic, they act as efficiently as possible to achieve their objectives, ignoring arbitrary rules and conventions if need be.

The Whole Picture

And where does the hydrogen come from?

Recall the Second Law and The Spirit Level - we need, yes, to use renewable energy. *But* we need, in the global north-west, to *reduce* our (or more accurately, capitalism's) energy use.

Beacause every wealth creation activity produces *more* pollution (illness) than wellness (wealth) - that's the Second Law of Thermodynamics point.

Ps in this context, illness=disordered materials and energy (ie high entropy stuff) and wealth=well ordered, low-entropy stuff that's 'useful' in helping humans fulfil their (our) needs.

So, hydrogen this and solar that is not going to cut it until we repeal the laws that permit usury (ie capitalism=money getting and accummulating money aka 'money making money').

Hence the plan for Co-operative Socialism.

For more pls see the Needs essay in the papers' section at www.interestfreemoney.org and colected papers at www.sustainabikitynotcapitalism.blogspot.com


Regarding mental not-wellness, I wrote on'my' FB page:

Ps Thx Alex. My post was designed to reach the MQ ppl, who-ever they are - to point out that mental illness is both biochemically/genetically-based and also situationally-based.

For the later term, I'm grateful to my friend Linda Peet who coined this in respect of depression.

The uber-point is that those of us who are (in sanity) miserable/depressed are so because we live in unequal societies (cf The Spirit Level book and www.equalitytrust.org.uk) *and so* our needs are not being met.

Note, a FB and www.sustainabilitynotcapitalism.blogspot.com posting, today, re Needs and hydrogen such that our uber/meta need is to live in a prospering *but also* income-equal society.

Ps Google searching for "situational depression" leads to:

http://www.psyweb.com/articles/depression-symptoms/the-difference-between-clinical-and-situational-depression-identify-the

http://universityhealthnews.com/daily/depression/situational-depression/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjustment_disorder

Note the reserves and,both US and 'establishment' reserves one may have about a Wikipedia page on a contraversial/potentially contra-establishment topic.

HtH!

Love2&4 all,

john

****

Saturday, October 8, 2016

Cooperate . . . or else!


As a  place marker, I've considered that the century now passed was a century of 'tele' words (telegraph, television, etc), while the present century is one of co- words (community, co-operation, conspiracy, etc).

Now, of course as that Save the Hyphen! essay pointed out, I think, a key co-word is co-option . . . and, then, pejoration.

Capitalism, for example,works hard to chasnge the meaning of co-operation into, first cooperation and then to use that term in a coercive sense:

- (As in 'Your cooperation is appreciated' = comply . . . or else!)

Thus a co-op becomes a coop - a place for dreams to fly being co-opted and pejorated into a prison of complince (as all prisons are . . .).

As I said, it's co-operation or co-option!

You decide!

So, buy old paper editions of dictionaries !

The two images are from:

http://www.slideshare.net/amna-shahid/semantics-22978244

http://www.slideshare.net/Robertagillum/a2-english-language-word-formation-processes

Also see http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/pejorterm.htm