Web Images Videos Maps News Shopping Gmail more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
The Non-Future of Violence
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
  4 messages - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post will appear after it is approved by moderators
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Luis Gutierrez  
View profile  
 More options Feb 8 2007, 9:57 am
From: Luis Gutierrez <luisgutier...@peoplepc.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:57:16 -0500
Local: Thurs, Feb 8 2007 9:57 am
Subject: The Non-Future of Violence
Dear friends,

The project, "Designing the Future of the Earth Co-operatively" is very
appealing.  I am working on a very small piece of this action.
Specifically, it entails researching the roots of violence, and how
violence can be mitigated as an obstacle to the attainment of a better
future for humanity.

After 40 years in R&D, I am now retired and doing some independent
research on religious violence, and the long term repercussions of
such violence on human solidarity and ecological sustainability.
I self-publish a free monthly newsletter that takes the UN Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) as point of reference.

Starting January 2007, I am trying to provide my subscribers with
a digest of one MDG each month.  This is the current issue:

Solidarity, Sustainability, and Non-Violence
Volume 3, Number 2, February 2007
http://www.pelican-consulting.com/solisustv03n02.html

This issue includes:

* Analysis of the U.N. Millennium Development Goals
      o Focus on Goal 2: Universal Primary Education
* Review of UNICEF's "State of the World's Children 2007"
* Web site review of "Facing the Future" (K-K16 educational materials)
* Knowledge organization model for our growing links directory
* Another view of the prayer-study-action model of human development
* Reflection on approaching the 40th anniversary of "Humanae vitae"
* Brief meditation (poem) on tolerance by John T. Baker

See also the "invited article" ....

"Will women ever govern the Roman Catholic Church?"
by John Wijngaards
http://www.pelican-consulting.com/solisustv03n02wijngaards.html

Please notice the call for papers and the upgraded resource directories.

Feedback is always welcome.

Sincerely,
Luis

Luis T. Gutierrez, Ph.D.
Editor, Solidarity, Sustainability, and Non-Violence
Mail, solidarity-sustainability-owner@googlegroups.com
Subscribe, solidarity-sustainability-subscribe@googlegroups.com


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
hearthstone  
View profile  
 More options Feb 8 2007, 4:43 pm
From: "hearthstone" <modelea...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 21:43:04 -0000
Local: Thurs, Feb 8 2007 4:43 pm
Subject: Re: The Non-Future of Violence
Dear Luis,
in my opinion, the "roots of violence" are so many that researching
them would take as long as humanity exists ...
However, if all (or most of) the parties involved in a conflict desire
a non-violent outcome, then all they have to do is to design/model
their common future together, because if they fail to actually "see"
what their peaceful coexistence should look like, a renewed conflict
is a possibility;
If we don't know what a "peaceful coexistence" "should look" like, it
is unlikely that we achieve it, since how can we get something that we
don't know what it is--hence the need for modeling of what "peaceful
coexistence" of any group/s should look like.

Likewise defining what "ecological sustainability" (and/or  what
"social sustainability") should mean poses a problem--as many people
there are, that many diverse definitions there are. Should all those
diverse opinions on the subject be inputted into a model together in
order to arrive at a usable definition, such a dynamically evolving
definition could actually be used constructively.

Thanks, Hearthstone.

On Feb 8, 2:57 pm, Luis Gutierrez <luisgutier...@peoplepc.com> wrote:


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Luis Gutierrez  
View profile  
 More options Feb 13 2007, 2:20 pm
From: Luis Gutierrez <luisgutier...@peoplepc.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:20:07 -0500
Local: Tues, Feb 13 2007 2:20 pm
Subject: Re: The Non-Future of Violence

hearthstone wrote:
> Dear Luis,
> in my opinion, the "roots of violence" are so many that researching
> them would take as long as humanity exists ...

Are you familiar with the works of Rene Girard?  According to Girard,
there is a single root to all violence, and it is to be found in early
religious rituals for which evidenciary records can be found in mythology.

> However, if all (or most of) the parties involved in a conflict desire
> a non-violent outcome, then all they have to do is to design/model
> their common future together, because if they fail to actually "see"
> what their peaceful coexistence should look like, a renewed conflict
> is a possibility;
> If we don't know what a "peaceful coexistence" "should look" like, it
> is unlikely that we achieve it, since how can we get something that we
> don't know what it is--hence the need for modeling of what "peaceful
> coexistence" of any group/s should look like.

Agree .... but easier said than done.

> Likewise defining what "ecological sustainability" (and/or  what
> "social sustainability") should mean poses a problem--as many people
> there are, that many diverse definitions there are. Should all those
> diverse opinions on the subject be inputted into a model together in
> order to arrive at a usable definition, such a dynamically evolving
> definition could actually be used constructively.

Not sure about this .... this is a case in which the total is more than
just the sum of the parts.

Take care,
Luis

--
Luis T. Gutierrez, Ph.D.
Editor, "Solidarity, Sustainability, and Non-Violence"
http://pelicanweb.org/solisust.html
luisgutier...@peoplepc.com

    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
hearthstone  
View profile  
 More options Feb 15 2007, 12:50 am
From: "hearthstone" <modelea...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:50:38 -0000
Local: Thurs, Feb 15 2007 12:50 am
Subject: Re: The Non-Future of Violence

On Feb 13, 7:20 pm, Luis Gutierrez <luisgutier...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> hearthstone wrote:
> > Dear Luis,
> > in my opinion, the "roots of violence" are so many that researching
> > them would take as long as humanity exists ...

> Are you familiar with the works of Rene Girard?  According to Girard,
> there is a single root to all violence, and it is to be found in early
> religious rituals for which evidenciary records can be found in mythology.

What would matter more in a collective modeling of the future than any
other considerations would be that people would be willing to design
their collective future in a non-violent way, and with the
participation of any and everyone.
What the history was, or wasn't, what the people's ideologies and
religions are would be of a far lesser importance.

> > However, if all (or most of) the parties involved in a conflict desire
> > a non-violent outcome, then all they have to do is to design/model
> > their common future together, because if they fail to actually "see"
> > what their peaceful coexistence should look like, a renewed conflict
> > is a possibility;
> > If we don't know what a "peaceful coexistence" "should look" like, it
> > is unlikely that we achieve it, since how can we get something that we
> > don't know what it is--hence the need for modeling of what "peaceful
> > coexistence" of any group/s should look like.

> Agree .... but easier said than done.

It has to be said before it is done, though.

> > Likewise defining what "ecological sustainability" (and/or  what
> > "social sustainability") should mean poses a problem--as many people
> > there are, that many diverse definitions there are. Should all those
> > diverse opinions on the subject be inputted into a model together in
> > order to arrive at a usable definition, such a dynamically evolving
> > definition could actually be used constructively.

> Not sure about this .... this is a case in which the total is more than
> just the sum of the parts.

Would you, please explain the immediately above?

Thanks, Hearthstone.


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google