"The premise of this discussion is that our world reforming power will be gotten by organizing around health labor and the environment, worldwide, keyed to the United Nations."

Using Socratic Questioning Method:
- What is the point of reference of this premise? Is this a conceptually valid or plausible statement?
- Is the concept of "world reforming power" valid?
- What is meant by "reform" and is it appropriate for our times as an end / objective? (if yes, for whom?)
- What is meant by power? Do you mean movement? Does movement and power equate in this context? What kind of power? What is the source of power?
-By "gotten" do you mean succeed? if so succeed in what?
- Why health, labor, and the environment? Why not other issues? Why not only a smaller subset of the three?
- By "worldwide" are you using this term because you recognize the problem as global and systemic, or for some other reason?
- Why "keyed to the United Nations"? Why does "our" "power" to be "gotten" or succeed have to be "keyed" to United Nations? What are your underlying assupmtions in regards to the "power structure"? What does United Nations represent within this structure? Are this "power structure" and United Nations compatible with the interests of "our reforming power", neutral to it, or inherently opposed to it. What kind of implications do you see even if United Nations gets involved? Please provide evidence where applicable.

Slave, I am going to try to answer your questions. Please give me a day or so. There's a second discussion linked to a working group in Sacramento, where maybe we don't need to discuss the things here. I think your questions are very important. I think one problem the world has is that it can't explain things like this. Marx's work was so deep that people are just trying to get a handle on it. I think feminist and womanist theory is very important. Answering your questions may also speak to a world audience. I've used some math and physics equations. That's an international language. The socratic method is internationally understood. So this discussion with you is good. And the other one might be good for slightly different reasons.
Sea

"The premise of this discussion is that our world reforming power will be gotten by organizing around health labor and the environment, worldwide, keyed to the United Nations."
Using Socratic Questioning Method:
-What is the point of reference of this premise? Is this a conceptually valid or plausible statement?

The point of referring to it is because it engages a strategy for ending world hunger. Its point of reference is that war is our chief trouble maker and if all people were fed, many reasons for war would disappear.

The premise assumes there is plenty of food but no international power capable of distributing it. The United Nations does food distribution already, so having it do more seems plausible. It also assumes that workers, their health, and the environment, are three sides to a stable structure for people.

I believe it speaks in plain terms, and is thus a sufficiently valid strategy for Occupy to adopt. I am willing to have this discussion hoping that other Occupiers will agree. I don't believe Occupy can succeed without a solid plan.

I think what people don't know is the physics that Marx explained, instead they think its economic theory. My strategy is to focus on food, the "physical" thing of his physics, his S. Then the — albeit technical and mathematical — physics can be learned. And as I mentioned in the Deconstructing dialog of Marchelo's,

http://occupytogether.com/forum/discussion/2037/how-to-disagree-or-how-to-carry-on-a-worthwhile-debate

this physics invovles simple numbers and simple math. Learning this would empower people, and they'd learn what Marx taught, and they'd be fed. By taking away the mystifying power of authorities using complicated math, we give people the plain mathematical power of them being amongst people who are all fed. This idea eclipses left or right, rich or poor, and good or bad or religious faith. Once we are all fed, we've done a lot toward have equality. It would apply in China Africa Russia the Americas Oceania MiddleEast, etc.

I know this is far fetched. But it eclipses the partial solutions. Its a total solution if seen in its totality. Also, I believe by actually intending to feed everyone, we would strike an ethical chord with the world, and that is the reason they would choose to support us. It would be teaching the most advanced knowledge there is, which is what Marx taught.
— é ÷ × —

The purpose of Socratic Questioning is to make us better thinkers and better communicators, i.e., more aware of the quality of our thoughts / ideas and their relations with reality / evidence. It is in this light that I have proposed adopting this method (which I presented in this other discussion thread http://occupytogether.com/forum/discussion/2189/rules-and-tools-of-critical-thinking#Item_6) for evaluating each others' writing / communications as well as more broadly in OWS and outside sources. And that is why I used it (almost as a way of thinking outloud) helping you and myself assessing your statement. Of course, I would expect the same if not more vigorous method applied to "my" writings in the spirit of "critical thinking", "intellectual humility and dignity", "cooperation", and "social constructiveness".

Here are some qualities we should seek in assessing responses to questions such as those I posed above (extract from the above link):

- CLARITY (ask at least three basic questions for clarification: seek Elaboration, Illustration [e.g., picture, metaphore], Example [the best means for concrete expressions e.g., in a particular / specific context],
- PRECISION (Detail and Specificity appropriate to the context)
- ACCURACY
- RELEVANCE
- DEPTH
- BREADTH
- LOGIC / POINT OF VIEW
- SIGNIFICANCE

As for the point of reference, I believe you misunderstood or misinterpret it. By the words I meant to imply what point of view / framework / foundational concept governing you statement / thought. This would be related to the way you view the world and process the connection or lack of connection of its elements. In this case more specifically it would be the power structure and how you tie in various elements above (i.e., OWS, health/labor/environment/food, and UN). -- So in this case my words "point of reference" may not have been clear, in which case we can ask "what do you mean", or "could you elaborate", etc. I hope the above explanation made my point.

Your current statement above seems to be different than the original one but only in detail (i.e., food security vs. health / labor / environment), but it is still consistent in the overall point of reference where you seem to be deferential to authority, in this case United Nations - meaning you see problem(s) / inequities / crises that need to be addressed and you consider United Nations as a solution. -- So in this case this relative lack of CONSISTENCY can cause confusion but I am moving beyond that.

"The United Nations does food distribution already, so having it do more seems plausible." This is where you reveal the "point of reference" which I ascribed to it the notion of "power structure" that you take for granted, i.e., take as an underlying "assumption" but without being aware of it. You "assume" that the UN just has to be told / advised / encouraged to do the good work it already has experience with, as if the UN is somehow neglectful, or incompetent but not enough to be ineffective under encouragement or even pressure.

But how could this be "plausible" / "accurate"? Why do you think UN has not already done what you suggest, "do more"?

Because Occupy hasn't taught them how to.

I have tweaked my arguments. I post them and then go back and edit some things. I think your points are valid. My points, though being tweaked are consistent, or so I would hope. Each detail doesn't necessarily change the overall drift, whether its valid or not. By going back and editing things, I think it improves the discussion.

Here are some good proverbs for making mistakes:
"If you don't make mistakes you don't make anything." (German)
"There are no mistakes, only lessons." (Chinese)
"Only he who does nothing makes no mistakes" (French)

The point is that mistakes are part of learning. But then the more important issue is how responsible we should be towards making mistakes.

"He who covers up his mistakes intends to make some more." (Chinese)
"Wise men learn by other men's mistakes, fools by their own." (Italian)

So my take is try to make as little mistakes as possible but now that it is unavoidable in life especially if we want to learn anything (this is the basis of Socratic humility / intellectual humility). Recognizing and addressing them makes our learning that much optimal. Being "consistent" is a good trait if our thoughts are well grounded but not if they are flawed with mistakes / misunderstanding / misinterpretations.

As for your answer to the question, do you think UN will listen or act how to even if Occupy taught them?

Occupy now has the attention of the whole world with the best media. Once we act people will respond to the idea of everyone being fed. Then, though many will resist and countries will oppress, a world consensus will form around the idea, and country by country people will empower the UN to feed.

The physics behind it, with its mental/emotional and spiritual dimension, is more complicated. But Newton gave us the variable M, Marx S, and Native Americans (4DQ). And empowering people to do their own calculations on how it adds up to people being fed, just like gravity amounts to apples falling to the Earth, is going to become easier, because we are dealing with small numbers and simple math.

Thanks for giving me a chance to express this. I will enjoy learning from you.

Thanks, I am learning from you too; maybe not the same way as you are learning from me, but I am learning from you nonetheless.

Do you think that UN is a "neutral" entity / institution that Occupy can influence / "empower"?

I looked up what the UN exactly is about in Wikipedia, and it says (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/United_nations):
"The United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achievement of world peace."

@Sea, you say: "Then, though many will resist and countries will oppress, a world consensus will form around the idea, and country by country people will empower the UN to feed."

@Sea, I see a discrepance between what the UN's stated aims are, and what your hopes are.
First of all, the UN SUPPORTS all things ("international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achievement of world peace") which are caused by our capitalistic economy.

I try to explain what I mean:

We (human beings) need international law only if we live in circumstances that create conflicts. The capitalism is all about business competition and therefore a capitalistic society does indeed need international (and national) law.

We (human beings) need international security only if we live in circumstances that create insecurity. The capitalism is all about making money (Marx: making G' from G) while human needs (food etc.) are considered as "byproduct" and left to accident/fate of the individual. This inherently causes insecurity.

I could continue to lay down the remaining aims (i.e. economic development, social progress, human rights, and achievement of world peace) in the same manner.

So the discrepance I see is about:
How can Occupy (or any other movement of people who want to feed everyone) support a instituion (.i.e. UN) which supports the enemy who is responsible for non-fed people?

Even if the UN is giving out food every now and then, it is NOT doing so with the aim of feeding the hunger of people. But it does so with the aim of keeping "international security", "world peace" etc., all aims where "hunger" is a disturbing feature but not the center of target. Otherwise it would be listed in their official aims.

Please ask me to clarify if I could not give the right wording to my argument.

I am very interested in your answer to @slaves question (Do you think that UN is a "neutral" entity / institution that Occupy can influence / "empower"?), and would add another one:

Do you think there could be a way of organizing a reform of society (where hunger does not exist anymore) WITHOUT the UN, for example with just the people of the Occupy (and similar) movement?

@Ira,
Your questions like @Slaves, require lengthy answers. Just as an intro, I want you to know that I am explaining this strategy in more than one discussion on this forum. I am also participating in the CoC (Committees of Correspondence) conference calls hosted by interoccupy.org. The comments you and Slave make are deep and comprehensive and require full answers. I hope you will go to the other discussions where I've posted, admin may be able to help you find them, if not I'll post a list in a future comment. I've been working comprehensively on this problem since 1964. It started as a way to end war, moved in to feminist and womanist theory, and now is at the point where "feeding people" is the only way forward.

Your last question, briefly, the answer is no. The United Nations is required. Slaves questions require me to explain "conceptual" things, like: am I using a valid premise, or does one statement follow from the previous statement? He uses the Socratic method which like most WMS (western modern science) is useful but also problematic. TEK (traditional ecological knowledge) is a better system of thought. But as Indigenous people and Marx and women teach us, the world has made big mistakes. So we may need both WMS and TEK to repair our world. In the discussions "Wanting to be Indian" and "How to Disagree" and "The Evolution of Capitalism", I've introduced feeding physics which balances Newton's force physics and is based on TEK physics. Physicality has mental and spiritual dimensions.

I am just beginning to respond to you and Slave. I hope I have covered some points. I am going to try to answer other points you and Slave discussed. So this is the beginnng of a long conversation. Its taken me over fifty years to find someone who will discuss it and to find a movement that can do it. :)

(Do you think that UN is a "neutral" entity / institution that Occupy can influence / "empower"?)

I don't think anything is neutral. But being able to vote with civil liberties as in the USA, is the best way forward. The U.N. is largely controlled by "liberal education" forces in its General Assembly that a GRA (Greco-Roman-Abrahamic) heritage using WMS and not TEK impedes, and a real politik force in its Security Council that Russia and China impede. Both issues are extremely complicated. However Occupy is the only force I've ever even imagined that has a chance to reform things. I actually think the intellectual muster that comes from these discussions will prove "smarter" than either the U.N.'s GA or its Security council.

The term neutral as well as equal should really be avoided in my opinion, because they have strict mathematical meanings which are normally confused with their common usage.

This whole process is really hard for me. But we have to hang in. :(
Sea.

@Sea, You may have noticed that I frequently use quotation marks as in the word "neutral" because our language is corrupted, and cannot assume about anything you or other readers / contributors might interpret. I believe the only short-term remedy is to explain the definition by context including specific examples where possible for a more clear, precise, accurate communication. You may be interested in this other discussion thread http://www.occupytogether.org/discuss/#/discussion/2189/rules-and-tools-of-critical-thinking where such related topics of "critical thinking" skills, and Socratic Questioning methods are presented and discussed. As for "Socratic method", there are various methods and definitions (once again representing the corruption in language). I am not familiar with TEK but would assume the same potential corruption. Alternatively, I suggest demonstration and proof of any specific method, especially when dealing with close contacts such as in this forum. Labels / names could easily be coopted and abused to dismiss or confuse various notions. So I suggest you give examples of WMS vs. TEK in your discussions, contrasting them CLEARLY and SPECIFICALLY / PRECISELY, so more people can understand what you mean by these terms.

@sea, you hoped that you "have covered some points". Actually for me you uncovered a bee hive of new questions...
My concern is missing accuracy, for example if you say "Indigenous people and Marx and women teach us, the world has made big mistakes."
This sounds very general to me - isn't it more so that certain individuals (some of them indigenous and some of them female and one of them being Marx) did or said things that can "teach us, the world has made big mistakes"?
Also the expression "teach us" seems very vague to me. Maybe you wanted to say that other people could/should learn from certain facts that happened in history?
And lastly, your saying "the world has made big mistakes" is not accurate either. "the world" never makes mistakes but certain people (not all) are by structure of this society empowered to hinder other people to lead their life as human beings (in biological, emotional and intellectual aspects), and in addition to that destroy treasures of soil and nature, which is bad because those are needed as livelihood by our generation and the generations to come.

@sea, what I only want to say is, that such short sentences as the one cited cannot afford NOT to be precise to the last drop (so to say), because they either make every reader nod due to their generality or they make it difficult to find a clear discussion point.

Just for brain-fun: this one sentence of yours could be a starting point for following discussions (just a sample of possibilities):
- what mistakes were exactly made, and by whom? And Why? (By accident? Willingly? By missing knowledge?)
- why is it "indigenous people and woman" that can teach us things? Could other people teach the same? If not, why?
- in exactly what aspect do they teach us? What is their subject? What should we learn? Not to make mistakes? Or to make more mistakes (because of the saying that you learn from your mistakes)?

My fear is that your very interesting and important subject (i.e. "a strategy for ending world hunger") which you started in this thread, dilapidates into inaccuracy (or looseness). And then it would be impossible to learn something from your obvious knowledge.

I am aware of the fact that the amount of things you studied over the years cannot be said with a few words. That is fine with me. And I am very content with very few sentences, post by post, if they are phrased more precisely.

P.S.
Since English is not my mother language, I am afraid that MY wording sometimes is not accurate either. If you find so, please tell or help me - I don't mean grammar so much as missed subtleties in meaning).

@Ira,
I am going to take your question format and work with it. I very much appreciate talking with you, and highly respect your original langauge.

- what mistakes were exactly made, and by whom? And Why? (By accident? Willingly? By missing knowledge?)
- why is it "indigenous people and woman" that can teach us things? Could other people teach the same? If not, why?
- in exactly what aspect do they teach us? What is their subject? What should we learn? Not to make mistakes? Or to make more mistakes (because of the saying that you learn from your mistakes)?

I believe that we, including @slave @marchelo @whitefeather @bnhunter @middleground @1loveAl and others are on the same page. But its a long page and some start at the top or bottom or on the left or right.

"What is their subject?" In trying to answer this question, I will rephrase it as: What knowledge base do people use, to practice democracy and enjoy civil liberties? More specifically, In the United Nations GA, what "knowledge" would incur the most agreement?

I will offer the following description of the relationship between "physicality" and "naturalistic", as a way to define the original basic terms of the question and answer.

If something is naturalistic, it is how an average person would describe it, who balances the use of appropriate conventional language (L), with universal (U) iconic symbols, that refer to an indexed sign regarding something on Earth (E). Physics is a study of physicality that has physical mental/emotional and spiritual dimensions. Being naturalistic is a truth determination, the measure of which is the equation, L + U + E = 1. If some material thing is primarily substantial and is defined naturalistically — and this differs from a "naturalistic explanation" — then it can be studied by physics. If not, its a subject for metaphysics.

— é ÷ × —

@Ira.
The central theme is for Occupy to win. I did say "end world hunger". However I didn't mean it to be utopian. Our large world population and food production and distribution, could be influenced to stop hoarding, and make it a law that everyone must be fed. Some people would still fall through the cracks though. Each nation wouldn't be as efficient as other nations are. But showing the physics of it, the social theory of it, Occupy's honest determination to do the best job we can — it seems to me — would gain us the world's allegiance. That would give us power to do the right best job we could, without in all likelihood doing it perfect. My strategy is designed to gain for us the power to be able to try. Right now I believe, the ideas of the world — the various "worldviews" held by people, distinct from the ideas I am discussing with you — are set up (probably not willingly but certainly having this structural effect), do the opposite of what I am suggesting. I am putting in place ideas which would prevent road blocks.

@Ira.
- what mistakes were exactly made, and by whom? And Why? (By accident? Willingly? By missing knowledge?)

The mistakes started when people migrated throughout the Middle East, into Asia, and beyond. My theory is that the groups migrating out of Africa started varying in many ways. However when the Ice Ages started, they were all met by big changes, caused by "one" event; the Earth got cold. The varying ways of responding all amounted to trying to survive in a harsher situation. Some areas got drier, some wetter, some warmer, some colder. And such changes are difficult.

Much more work was needed — building homes, hunting animals, food harder to get generally, enemies invading — and for survival women needed to protect babies. ** As a result, women gave more power to men. Before the Ice Ages according to my theory, food was very easy to obtain and people did not have enemies like we do today which we've come to think must always be. Men became the fighters protectors and builders.

The resulting mistaken consequences certainly weren't done willingly. People can't see the full consequences of what they do. I don't think women or their men could have seen that male leadership would eventually result in the Earth destruction that we have today.

As for missing knowledge. Yes. Until after World War Two, as a world society, we didn't know all the results of what we have done. The United Nations has facilitated getting much of this information today.

The Ice Ages were the big change in the world which we are still reacting to. Now, having discovered traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), because the people we genocided actually survived, we need to integrate it with our western modern science (WMS).

Much more has happened. I insist on establishing an ethical outline to an Occupy strategy. The "physical" Earth changes I've briefly mentioned above, and other things get studied. While academics loves to develop new departments of knowledge, our knowledge can also be developed in an integrated way. Starting with our physical Earth. We learn this through applying the fundamentals of physics, whose logic and math encompasses other disciplines, with physical, mental/emotional, and spiritual dimensions.

"isn't it more so that certain individuals (some of them indigenous and some of them female and one of them being Marx) did or said things that can "teach us, the world has made big mistakes"?
Also the expression "teach us" seems very vague to me. Maybe you wanted to say that other people could/should learn from certain facts that happened in history?"

** Please don't think that saying women needed to protect babies is an "essentialist" argument intended to define roles for women. Nor that men needed to hunt is an "essentialist" argument intended to define roles for men. Women and men needed to respond to the Ice Ages to survive. Had there not been the Ice Ages, maybe women and men would act very different today.

— é ÷ × —

@sea, you said "Our large world population and food production and distribution, could be influenced to stop hoarding, and make it a law that everyone must be fed. Some people would still fall through the cracks though. Each nation wouldn't be as efficient as other nations are."

I am afraid, I completely disagree. I am looking for a solution where concepts as "nation" or "law" or money become obsolet, or to put it very short: no power by people over people, and all available resources accessible for everyone. And therefore of course no "falling through the cracks" either, for no one.
Your strategy has such a different goal that I don't see that our discussion could lead to some fruitful results, at least for my perspective...

For all available resources to be available, the first step is for everyone to have some food in their belly. Then each person could decide how to arrange things so they get their resources. Without them being fed they are powerless to reduce the influence of law or nation or money.

Perhaps saying "people will fall through the cracks" is an insensitive thing to say. However today whole regions fall through the cracks and starve. My idea doesn't suppose that things will be perfect once enacted. It supposes that fewer people will fall through the cracks than now. And it does it in a way that doesn't impose new laws or a ruling United Nations regime with more power. It uses the current regimes and merely forces them to feed everyone. And when the people are fed, if they want they can "bring down" their govt. Which I'm in favor of. But that is too utopian. Social control isn't going to go away. But requiring social control first and foremost to feed everyone is specific. No we probably won't succeed. But we, by trying, might be able to set forth the greatest knowledge that can be use in the future.