Eclectic Universal Conceptualism...

A Note...
Yeah, I wrote a reply earlier, but my machine crashed, so here's something of what I had to say. Sarkar's ideas are generally in line with many new western thinkers, such as Herman Daly and Hazel Henderson, two I've already mentioned to you. This link: http://www.proutist-universal.org/ would actually be better to see how he thinks, as it covers more of the social-economic-political points of views. What struck me was the bottom-up approach, as it relates to Obama's ideas. Also his ideas about other top-down and bottom-up failures, i.e., socialism, communalism, communism, bad forms of capitalism. He's also much in line with Gandhi's thinking. My interpretation is probably different than your's or most, since I've studied so much of this already, but I'd like to point out my central observation, which is; "A New Form of Responsibile Co-operative Capitalism". We've already tried all forms to the right and left. It's about time we tried the middle path___Co-operation to find the essential truths of government and markets, instead of settling for "A concensus of the half-blind". I was just impressed that India had such a philosopher of note, with the pragmatic middle ideas, which blend with the directions I think/know the world must go. It's also in line with a new series of documentary on Link TV, The Planet. They laid out four possible directions of Earth, for the future; 1.Star Trek, where we build "Pig-Sty-Scrapers" to house 90 billion inhabitants, through the expansion of present synthetic technology. 2.Mad Max, where the world ends in terror, wars and total collapse. 3.Eco-Topia, where we start to co-operate through becoming more responsible, to build a sensible and proper world. 4.Big-Government/Big-Brother, what I would call totalitarian egalitarianism. Most don't realize 3. and 4. are the same, as any true utopias must have organized control, yet there's a big difference whether such control is voluntary co-operation or not. As I see it, Sarkar's ideas of individual sovereignty and autonomy, achieved through responsible co-operation, offer our best chance, as this is exactly what I've written about lately. Many have preached inter-dependency, but I see the sovereign autonomous route as much more desirable. It's just a matter of transcending the contradictions of the squash/mush-room, sitting atop all our shoulders. This is where eclectic universal conceptualism comes in, i.e., study to achieve the transcended truth, of all ideas...

You know, the only reason I looked up "Eclectic Universalism" was, it was running through my mind, when I awoke Saturday morning. I said, "Well there's a new combination of words, let me see where this leads". Since finding Sarkar and others about eclectic universalism, I had a new vision. The best way is to just state it, and this isn't being sexist. It's just men have been the dominators of societies, and still are in many nations, whereas women have only in recent history attained power and vote. Here it is; "The great man sees the same great man, in all men". Now, at first glance, this may seem contradictory, but it's actually not, even if one wants to take the extreme example of Hitler, as another great man stated; "The worst of society works the public good." Mandeville, I think. Anyway, just think how much the modern world learns from such monsters as Hitler, or even Bush/Cheney. At the highest transcendence levels of vision, all minds meet in absolute non-contradiction___It's our belief systems, attached to our ideas, that prejudice our views. Now, this isn't to say that Hitler wasn't a true monster, which he was, but when transcended to the total eclectic universal view, the world owns all its own monsters, which are often created by un-intended consequences of society's earlier actions. In the case of Hitler, it would be the "Versailles Treaty", where England and the Rest of Europe starved Germany to the brink of death, after WWI___What'd they expect to get___Mickey Mouse?

I've drifted off my point here, but if we could all see "other" as "great-self-self" we'd have far less trouble understanding how to transcend ourselves, to arrive at the ultimate truth necessity. Just take the Republicans and Democrats___One argues for absolute top-down government-economics-social conditions, and the other argues for bottom-up government-economics-social conditions___When both are always simultaneously required___The middle responsible co-operative position. It matters not if the argument is taken back to Paganism/Science; Paganism/Christianity; Christianity/Science, or any opposing contradictions one chooses___The differences are simply generated by the prejudiced belief systems/ideologies, overly attached to the same humans' higher natures of sameness, and sound analytical truths. You know, something the world seems to not know, is the fact that the exact analytical sciences have only "ONE" truth fact answer, for each case investigated___Beliefs must be dropped off, to achieve any exactness, in the true sciences. This doesn't mean one must give up any personal beliefs. It just means that in order to achieve exact scientific truth, a co-operation and responsibility to hard fact is required. This just simply requires temporarily transcending one's personal feelings, beliefs, meta-mind to achieve one side of the higher nature's mind. The higher nature of the natural feeling, responsible, co-operating mind is still in tact to assure all is guided to the "greater good for all" concerned...

What I mean is, most think there are such ideals as true open-ended utopias, ya know, like perfection? Few realize that true perfect liberty is an agreed to, reduced freedom, for the benefit of all concerned___Ya know, like if we all had a radical utopian freedom, we'd all have the liscencious right to do what we pleased, and the law be damned. I mentioned "any true utopias must have organized control" the way I did, to clearify the diffs between open-radical-utopian ideals, that are truly impossible, as verses sensible utopias, of the best possible of worlds, under sensible yet better functioning legal systems, through much higher evolved law systems, and true social justice, than what we presently have. This would be far better organizations of global monetary/law/political and distribution systems, of far less exploitation, subordination and dominance, than now exists. And as to the system I'm relating to, I do not mean one of less freedoms/liberties, we now possess, but one of more, yet most don't realize different organizations of laws/contracts, even more laws in certain areas, while reducing useless laws in other areas, can produce more and better liberty/freedom systems. It's just hard to explain to someone, how you are going to add/change/reduce laws, yet increase freedoms/liberties, yet it's possible. Justice, true global justice, is very hard for most to see, as we've all been brainwashed into the present systems of injustice, yet better freedoms/liberties are achievable, through better organiztions of the very existing systems of contract justice. Remember, even the dollar bill is a contract, and the U.S. Constitution is the "Contract of All Contracts", yet this social contract does not hinder us to change sub-contracts of the major contract, when we realize it's only our false beliefs/ideologies, over-attached to it, now preventing the advancement of better contracts. The real problem enters in the international trade of contracts, where more law would actually create much more freedom, for the local contracts___the money contracts, that benefit the social contract. I could ramble on forever, but I'd have to draw it out for you, to totally understand what I really mean. It's just more international government control over too free a corporate contracts, gives us more local freedom/liberty, automatically. It's just nations have always resisted this concept, because their local allegiance mind tells them, it's more restrictive, when it's truly not. Kinda a paradox, but it's not___It's just a matter of interpretation of understanding the total control/market function of international contracts, as they relate to local social justice contracts, and the expansion of these local justice contracts, as really, they(the local social contracts' freedoms/liberties) expand, by simply reducing the corporate international open-outlaw-contract control, over the entire world's local contracts, by actually increasing government/democracy contract control over them. This can be more easily stated, but I seem to be spinning in circles, trying to explain the simplicity of this complexity, but the truth is that a reduction of nefarious corporate international contract freedoms, is automatically an increase of personal, social contract, and national liberties. The way George Monbiot put it was, "Local democracy is impossible, without international democracy." I guess that's best. We presently have a too free a corporate outlaw international contract system, organized through the corrupt WTO free-trade contract system, related tax havens, and all other foreign exchange near-lawless-contracts, presently controlled by the outlaw corporations' inter-trusts, oppressing the local/national contracts' liberties___This must change. Hope that's clear enough. Let me know if it's not...

To me, the easiest way to understand interdependence is as a social contract concept. I'd just ask the question; "Is the interdependence of global socialist/communist acting, corporate contract dominance/exploitation of local contracts desirable, or is a more sovereign democratic action of local contracts' liberties/freedoms expansion more desirable?" When it comes to the sovereignty/interdependence of persons to persons, in personal relationships, I think that may be one of choice. Myself, I'd always choose sovereignty and independence, i.e., the higher degree of individual freedoms/liberties, as long as they aren't injurious to others, yet others may choose the sefety and soveriegnty of a close interdependent relationship___Still, Choice. At the national/international level, contracts must be re-written in both directions___some decreasing interdependence, where it's actually oppressive/exploitative, and some increasing interdependence, where it's beneficial, if the nation happens to be small and weak. It's kinda like animals and humans, it depends on our Darwinian strenghts/weakeness, which position we choose___sovereignty or interdependence___Again, Choice. Many anchored positions often seem to get one into interpretation troubles, with others, even though we must quite often anchor our positions, even when interpretations wrong them___just the way it is. Clarifications are only reached through successful communications, and grounding our selves in natural "mother wit and common sense". A rock-group I used to listen to stated it this way; "Successful communication, can take you very far". I forget who...

Most are also un-aware there are two dynamically different ethical systems___Manichean and Nicomachean. Manichean is the ethics of the emotions, and Nicomachean is the ethics of reason. Aristotle is the most famous for the Nicomachean ethics, which was actually named after his son, Nicomachus. Manichean ethics was created by the Christian church and philosopers of, some 500 years later, and is as Nietzsche described it; "Morality is one's prejudices, learned by age 18".

I mentioned it because I wasn't aware if you were aware of the fact, about two entirely different systematic ethical systems, functioning in most societies, at once, as well as all the general normally evolved ones, and their related moral systems. I wasn't aware of it myself, until about a month ago, but then again, I haven't studied ethical systems for years, though I knew they both existed, I didn't know one was from Greek philosophy, while the other was from Christian philosophy. I'll take the Greek philosophy one :-)

Hope I haven't run on too much,
Anyway,
Good luck

p.s.
"Good Luck"___The only thing I think I still believe in, but mine's had a long run of not winning the lottery :-)
I'll have all the above better worded later___When it's new, it comes hard...