EIGENVIELFALT (SELF-DIVERSITY)

 

Eigenvielfalt

Most new words come from usage, from the needs of specialists, from the people on the street, etc. They come because of a new need, a new process, a new object, a new situation, etc. We know that words are powerful as they partly shape what we can think and how we think about it. Often, without a word we can’t fathom the existence of something.

I believe that we are in a situation where a concept and its word do not exist yet but the need for it is prominent and urgent. I hope that I will be able in the following lines to make the case that we are now confronted with such an issue/opportunity.

Our evolution from human 1.0 (sapiens sapiens) to Human 2.0 (agriculture) to Human 3.0 (metals) to Human 4.0 (industrial) took place at a relatively slow but accelerating rate. Our recent access to Human 5.0 (Information technology age) is moving at an ever increasing rate but we are missing the tool to manage or thrive with the change and diversity that comes with it: the “Weltburger” spirit is missing from our actual Globalization process. The consequences are the many negative ‘isms that comes from the fear generated when you miss the tool to manage or thrive with new daily encounters/change.

Therefore,

We argue that in the same way we needed mathematics and languages to manage the former human stages (1-4), we need new abilities to manage or thrive within the information technology age in a humane way.

We argue that by giving a word to this new needed ability, language will allow for awareness, acknowledgment, engagement at large by society.

We argue that in this case, it is the language that needs to be a leading force toward the change that is needed to handle our ever increasing changing and diverse world, laying the foundation of the paradigm shift that need to take place.

We argue that access to a word will allow for thoughts to crystalize and take further the abilities needed to ensure a humane Human 6.0 era. 

We argue that without these abilities we are sliding toward populism, sexism, racism, generationalism, entitleism, and a spate of other dehumanising ‘isms that plague our times.

We argue that the word proposed below should be international and that it should be of German origin, like Zeitgeist, kindergarten, Zeitgeber, Eigenvalue, etc. The concept in English has a few name but misses the global scope as it focuses on the cultural aspect only.

We have spoken for the last 20 years with a few scholars and much has been suggested. The word proposed is the culmination of innumerable discussions and people. Since it is a new concept, the word will sound new and maybe uncomfortable to some of you. We argue that the pressing need for a crystallization of our awareness for these new needed abilities justifies a certain level of scholarly “uncomfortability”, humbly speaking.

The word is “Eigenvielfalt”, and if we dare, with its verb, eigenvielfalten and its adjective, Eigenvielfältig. Yes, I hear you, yet, may I suggest you say it a few times before using the axe :-).

The long array of words in English is, among others, “cross-culture abilities”, “intercultural abilities”, “third culture abilities” but although pointing in the right direction these words do not show the core concept which is to work on one own personal diversity to be able to manage or thrive with "diversity and change" as a whole. In other words, diversity is not limited to cultures: it has several roots including gender, religion, race, nationality, wealth, age, education, profession, language, and yes culture. The root “Eigen” is already known in English and its uses marries well the concept of making diversity/complexity understandable.

You may be tempted to suggest other words like “eigene Vielfalt” to use existing words and proceed cautiously. But to use a combination of existing words does not offer the same power that a single word has. We argue that we do not really have the time to proceed cautiously caught between the fear of many people on the left of the Gauss and the euphoria of the many on the right (Note: the use of left and right in this case does not refer to the political spectrum. In an unstable world, people tend to be afraid (left) or ecstatic (right), both contributing to the problem).

What happened to our understanding of strength?

 What happened to our understanding of strength?

 

Strength without violence is the only strength. The other one is weakness.

Derivatives of this weakness are corruption, and dogmas which both feed on oppression and secrecy. And both are tools to control, fueled by fear.

Therefore, to manage them we need (i) tools to avoid (or get out of) our fears and (ii) transparency. As a bonus, both (i) and (ii) feed each other. And we need to be able to thrive on a  path of patient communication.

Eigenvielfalt training is a way to learn to engage and thrive with diversity & change, which in turns allows for diversity to flourish and become transparent.

________________________

A note: Dogmas are centered on an ego that hides behind a "we" that exploits/abuse the "non-we". In this sense, a spirituality/science/culture that welcomes the "other" is not a dogma. One that does not accept the other (diversity) is a dogma. Dogmas are found everywhere in small (at home, peers, work, sports) and in big (religions, nationalism, corporatism) and are a source of great sufferings (both human and environmental).

EIGENVIELFALT

IF

 

IF...

 

 

If your goal is not even to live but to reproduce, then you are a virus. If your goal is not to live nor to reproduce but to convert then you are a prion. Ant the long list of existences beyond our realm goes on.

That being said, It is sad and destructive to limit oneself to these goals. If you are focused on revenge consider what giving back harm is, the same. Creative cooperation and care leads you to a better self, while giving yourself all the means to achieve it the best way possible. One of those means is Eigenvielfalt training.

OPEN STANCE

 

“OPEN STANCE”

 

The notion of “Open Stance” refers to the abilities to (i) form an opinion with all facts available and (ii) communicate it with open-mindedness.

 

With this concept, it is not only a possibility, but it becomes a responsibility for every one of us to take an open stance, whenever we can. Not taking this responsibility leaves an open space, which is gladly taken by those with “Closed stance”.

 

“Closed Stance” allows anyone to say anything in a closed-minded way. “Closed Stance” is the destructive tool that allows false politicians and executives, populists, extremists, sexists, and an array of other “‘ists” to justify oppression, control, violence, exploitation, and abuse. All leading to individual and societal suffering.

 

If every one of us live our “Open Stance” whenever we can (after working on it), communication and especially social media contribution will slowly become constructive. Unfortunately, despite all the good stuff it has allowed, social media has become a destructive force as we use it predominantly as a ventil for our frustration. Acknowledging the many life reasons for frustration, a close stance approach will not deliver on what we yearn. Obscene inequalities fed by a false understanding of merit has brought a significant portion of the Gauss to linger in a non-sentient form of frustration, desto the onslaught of Social Media destructiveness. But the corrective for these dystopian inequalities does not lay in vulgar and naive complaints but in a daily patient creative embrace of the “other”, until the “other” is no longer the “other” anymore. Not “A”, not “B”, but “C”…

 

All what is needed is for you to take an open stance on a thematic of your mindheart. Then the next one will find the courage to do her/is Open Stance. It takes very little courage to do so if you have the tools to live your open stance. The practice of Eigenvielfalt is one of those tools.

 

Ethical views on Covid-19&20

Ethical views on Covid-19&20

The future world/country management of Covid-19 is an opportunity for practicing ethical Swarmship. The choices are:

i) restrain movements/activities OR

ii) focus on the treatment.

Of course, one tends to say that we need both, but this is false depending on who you are. If you are a parent, your ethical choice is to protect yourself and your children from any risk of contamination.  That is an ethical choice supporting (i), the restriction of movements. If you are a governmental decider, the ethical choice is not the same. By choosing to restrain movement, one brings the economy to slow down significantly, as it has already started. This will be a source of important sufferings and violence worldwide, which by far will go beyond the sufferings associated with 2% mortality caused by Covid-19. By focusing on treatment, you might have the impression that you allow the infection to spread but Covid-19 is so infectious that, similar to Influenza, controlling its spread is not possible, only reducing individual risk of infection (ex. hand disinfection, masks, individual behavioral changes) is possible. IA quarantine might have been possible at the very beginning when less than 100 individuals were infected in one location, but it is by far not possible anymore.

By choosing to focus solely on treatment and individual hygiene, you avoid a significant economical collapse, which is in itself positive for health globally. The issue is that it takes political courage to take this ethical choice, and most politicians do not have that political courage as their very existence depends on being liked. Nevertheless, the ethical question is should one be seen as trying to stop a virus that will cause 2% mortality but as a collateral generate an economic collapse, which will cause far more damage that a 2 % mortality or should politicians focus on treatment and personal hygiene? Politically speaking, not having done everything to stop Covid-19 spread might be seen so politically incorrect, especially by those who will be directly or indirectly affected by family’s and friend’s mortality. To be able to say “we have done everything to stop the viral spread within our country” is a protection against populism backlash, even if the politicians knew that it was impossible to achieve and that indeed economic collapse was the real threat. As for the economic collapse, politicians will be able to argue that this economic collapse is just a consequence of having tried to stop the spread of the infection and, of course, they will be excused. Yet, the ethical decision is clear. Will it be taken? I very much doubt so, even with all the biological facts, because we are not the fact-based society we like to pretend to be: the lack of management of the global warming crisis comes to mind. Yet, should a misinformed public opinion based on fear be the driver? Should not, but remember we were not able to stop Brexit. The future will tell if this time we learned, or how long it will take to learn.

The easy path to a humane capitalism

I have been postponing this blog for a long time. Let's say several voices have expressed that they really do not like the following few lines.
The first argument is that most society accepts de facto that gains of any form (especially money and power) should be based on a meritocratic system (not existing wealth, nor family ties, nor corruption). Additionally, societies should agree on what constitute merit. Wealth, violence, deception should probably not. Creativity, courage, passion, determination, societal responsibility, empathy probably should or Even in such a system gains can exceed what I like to call an obscene level. To address this, each society should consider what is acceptable and what is not. For example, a region will consider that an interval from $1,000 to $10Mi/year is humanly acceptable, another will consider that the interval should be $10,000 to 10,000Mi/month. At the end of the day, if the decision is transparent and a reflection of the people it represents, than it has to be OK, but the absence of limit leads to our societal fabric disintegrating as populism is used as acid.
We already have a way to implement this limit and it is called a tax system.
The problem is that we still have a royal tax system, that is, richness is not taxed proportionally. We do tax proportionally between say 10,000 per year until 50,000 per year, but then something strange happens, the rate of taxes stays the same. additionally, such capital is often finding ways to avoid taxation altogether. We argue here that the right to a nationality should be linked to an obligation to declare one own revenues in a single location. The form of the relationship between income and individual tax can also be a function of a society, but at the end of the day there must not be a refuge for the obscene, neither in another country or within one own country by capping the % over a certain income. I would argue that there is a maximum at which income becomes obscene, therefore personally, b) is what we should strive for, progressively. I would also argue that for the private sector, taxes should be in function of the cost to the environment or to society (people). Finally, and for fear mongers, this is in no shape or form communism. Communism as model did not work and even China and Russia know it. People need acknowledgement for certain merit, we are biologically built that way. The two essential points made here are (i) we have to decide as a society which merit we support, and (ii) in addition to point (i) there is an income level that is socially unacceptable, this income level is at the source of many sufferings and destroys the societal fabric, an income level beyond which any donation/foundation can not repair the damage done.

Example:
a) a society with a log tax function (progressive but making sure that the capping does not occur before the highest income)

b) a society with an exponential tax function (Rapid, which allows for the determination of an unacceptable income beyond which all will be a donation called tax)

c) a society with a sigmoid tax function (rapid in the middle, which is a bit of what we have but without capping at 40K but say at 10Mi)

A post for sapiens sapiens' survival

• What would a New Societal Contract look like? 

There are country specific aspects and there are global aspects. For the global aspects certain powers have to be at a global level to have meaning. A new societal contract would have to be made by world citizens (with the capacity to think, plan and act globally). This means planning and implementing not for a country, not for a religion, not for an elite, etc. but for earth citizens. Does it really take the arrival of aliens for us to feel earthlings and save our home?  A value-based system where the culture of an area has an important role to play but where cronyism, wealth, and violence are not the drivers. The weight put on knowledge, passion, courage, knowledge, empathy, hard work, etc. would be culture specific.
 

• How can we prepare for Digitalisation and the Future of Work? 

(i) Exploring and implementing true transparency, (ii) Creating a level playing field, globally to allow for the best solutions to be used, (iii) Giving the chance for and valuing individuals who can create and implement a human digitalisation, that is individuals with the abilities of a global citizen. This of course will need to be define and redefined and reredefined and that's not only OK but needed.
 

• Why is International co-operation important for our time?

 (i) Several critical issues of our time are at an earth level, although implementation may be local, tackling them at a country level creates an un-level playing field which is the main barrier to sustainability (including attaining the SDGs) and a humane world, (ii) Globalization is more than ever like gravity (Annan), that is, it is a loss of energy to fight it, therefore we ought to prepare ourselves to manage a humane globalization and that asks for cooperation, where the goal is not anymore to achieve a compromise between A and B, but a cooperation where we create C together where all get 100% of what they want as oppose to the crude notion of compromise, (iii) all this needs two things to work a) a better wealth distribution which will lower the chance for a people/country to choose violent/socio-pathological leaders (See the no asshole rule by Sutton), teach in schools the abilities needed to nurture diversity, ethics, empathy,etc., teaching aspects we have eliminated 30 years ago from our school systems, worldwide, thinking that this would give us a focused workforce. How wrong we were is shown by where we are. And a few other aspects that would be beyond the scope of this comment :-)

​

-->