AGREEMENTS FIELDS

explores, discovers, and describes the bigger system of agreements that encompasses the four big questions (economic, political, cultural, social), four different lenses on the experience of Homo lumens in society

 

While the ultimate goal, in the near term, is to describe one set of agreements that encompasses the four lenses (EPCS), initially the Ecosynomics 2.0 Foundational Lab explores the origin story and framing of each lens separately, evolving along the rich tradition of observers who have developed each lens

Economic Lens

Ecosynomics 1.0 mapped existing scarcity-based economic frameworks, which ask how much resource one has, onto a continuum of scarcity to abundance

This framing shows how specific economic prescriptions (rules/laws) are what economics sees through the four lenses (P—allocation mechanism, C—values, S—organization), and that much of economic formulation focuses on the outcomes level, which can be derived from the light-verb-noun formulation of ecosynomics

The next stage of development of the economic-lens line of work is:

to link experience-based knowing in ecosynomics to rational and behavioral economics

to develop the macro, meso, and micro-levels of ecosynomics, showing how the parallel levels of laws/rules in diverse economic frameworks derive from this higher-order set of principles

 

Political Lens

Ecosynomics 1.0 mapped the political question as asking who decides and enforces, showing that a wide diversity of political systems can be characterized by the primary relationship that each system most focused on (self, other, group, nature, spirit), and that there are emerging political forms that bring all five primary relationships simultaneously

The next stage of development of the political-lens line of work is to describe the evolution of the origin story of who decides and enforces and the resulting framing of the political question

In the lineage of social contract theory, spanning the last 400 years, from Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu and Rousseau to Rawls, the evolving initial question (origin story) of the political question has focused on the individual (how does man behave in a state of nature, before society) and recently on the other (how does the human determine what is fair in justice, in the original situation)

This line leads them to suggest what rules/laws (from Latin lex, to lay down, as in laying down one’s rights) are needed to decide and enforce

Towards a political system for Homo lumens, Ecosynomics 2.0 strives to build on this lineage of an evolving answer, adding a developmental perspective, from one historical level to another

Encompassing the five primary relationships simultaneously, the origin story shifts to how Homo lumens is able to realize (from the French réaliser, to make real) one’s available ecology of consciousness and nature

Who decides and enforces, amongst Homo lumens, is framed by the experience-in-relationship of unconsciously accepted and consciously chosen agreements in the five primary relationships

Following the framing of Hegel’s historical developmental dialectic, Homo lumens has evolved through three stages of rule and is now entering a fourth

Initial political systems focused on “what being rules,” finding one to multiple spirit or nature beings

These systems evolved into the second stage, asking “who rules for that being,” finding divinely-expressed human beings in the monarchy or church

The third, and most recent stage, evolved from the Enlightenment into asking, “who else rules, instead,” finding many forms, such as: rule of self—autocracy, rule of other—sociocracy, rule of group—?, rule of nature—?, rule of spirit—theocracy, rule by few– oligarchy, scared rule–hierarchy, without rule–anarchy, rule by wealthy–plutarchy, rule by best– aristarchy, rule by holy–hagiarchy, and rule by propertyowners–timocracy

Developmentally, following the dialectic process of the synthesis that transcends the thesis and antithesis, AGREEMENT FIELDS frames the fourth stage as asking “why rule?”

If to rule means to create a stable, straight line, focused primarily on resource-power, the fourth stage suggests probocreatio–tangibilization-power, where the question shifts from who rules, who sets the straight line, to who sets the principles, from which the standards and rules derive, in context

This line of inquiry develops a cosmovision of who decides/enforces and the accompanying principles

This frame is informed from what CHOICE is mapping in the field (GI_MEDIR, Vibrancy, CHOICE networks) and through CHOICE field experiments (what is happening with most people, with positive deviants, with our projects)

Terms relevant to the political lens – social contract, constitution, rule/standard/principle

Social – from Latin socius "companion, ally”
Contract – from Latin com- "together" (see com-) + trahere "to draw"
Constitution – from Latin from com- “with,” + statuere "to set," from PIE root *sta- "to stand, make or be firm"
Rule – from PIE root *reg- "move in a straight line"
Standard – from PIE root *sta- “to make or be firm”
Principle – from Latin principium “a beginning”

Cultural Lens

Ecosynomics 1.0 mapped the question of “what criteria” with existing value sets, usually of very simple, outcomes-based wealth indicators, into the vibrancy experienced in the five primary relationships in the three levels of perceived reality (light, verb, noun)

Initial inquiry into culture focuses on who we are, as Homo lumens, the structures of symbolic meaning that identify us, on ritual, and on identity holders

The WECAN Advanced Study Group is taking up some of these questions

The next stage of development of the cultural-lens line of work is:

To identify the origin story of value in cultural anthropology (descriptive) and in moral philosophy (normative)

To connect the cultural-lens origin story to the moral philosophic inquiry that initiated most existing EPCS systems

To develop a set of values in agreements fields that reflect the vibrancy experienced in being fully Homo lumens

Social Lens

Ecosynomics 1.0 mapped existing organizational forms, as described through a diverse set of sociologically-informed frameworks, asking the question of how do we interact, what are the rules of the game?

Initial work mapped the origin story of sociology that focuses on the inequities that emerge, now that people rule (level 3 systems—who else rules), concentrating on one or more of the four lenses:

Economic—surplus definition and distribution
Political—power to decide and enforce
Cultural—whose values, including mostly my needs
Social—rule setting that includes me

Towards the ecosynomic description of a social systems of tangibilization, the next stage of development of the social-lens line of work is:

To frame – design principles, standards, rules for segregating, flocking, uniting
To reframe inequities from what to get rid of to what to realize

 

framing the [B]ig [Q]uestions

 

Primary lens

Philosophy of man in society, addressing 4 big Qs (lenses EPCS)

Origin story and framing of each lens, scarcity to abundance

Basic structure of agreements, AEMaps, agreements fields, memetic structures

Reframe

framing a perspective and process that could become an initial agenda
the whole existing model is wrong
requires tangibilization power for infinitely expansive and ever-adjusting-to-witnessing network-power moves at the core and the periphery to realign resource power

E – micro, meso, macro

P – political systems for Homo lumens

Primary lens

who decides and enforces

Origin story

state of nature of man, how man is in law of nature, before society
what rules need (evolution of answer – not developmental, from one historical level to another, rather what able to see) social contract

Framing

experience-in-relationship of unconsciously accepted and consciously chosen agreements, 5 primary relationships

Historical Development of Rule (see developed doc, tying to JRawl, Kant, Marx, Hegel historical dev dialectic, what is next?)

What rules – one-multiple spirit being(s), nature beings
Who rules – monarch, church
Who else rules -- self-autocracy, other-sociocracy, group-?, nature-?, spirit-theocracy
other forms – oligarchy, rule by few – hierarchy, sacred rule – anarchy, without rule – plutarchy, rule by wealthy – aristarchy, rule by best – hagiarchy, rule by holy – timocracy, rule by propertyowners
Why rule – rule = straight line-resource-power, probocreatio – tangibilization-power

Process

field experiments (most people, positive deviants, ours), data (type, amount, demographics)

Language

Social contract, constitution, rule

Social – from Latin socius "companion, ally”
Contract – from Latin com- "together" (see com-) + trahere "to draw"
Constitution – from Latin from com- “with,” + statuere "to set," from PIE root *sta- "to stand, make or be firm"
Rule – from PIE root *reg- "move in a straight line"

C – values in agreements fields

what we know from our own experience, of what we agree to

S – social systems for tangibilization

Primary lens

How interact, rules of game

Origin story

Now that people rule (level 3 – who else rules), inequities emerge in:

E surplus definition and distribution
P power to decide and enforce
C whose values, including mostly my needs
S rule setting that includes me

Framing

Design principles, standards, rules – for segregating, flocking, uniting
Process – projects, data

Agreements – the book
Global social topography of human agreements

Global Initiative to Map Ecosynomic Deviance and Impact Resilience (MEDIR)
Metamemetics and epimemetics

 

e[X]plore some of the[R]elated [R]eflections by clicking the links below

 

Other Related Reflections

 

if you are interested in these questions, [A]pply

to join this group in our [C]ommunity