So, what would this “Reality” social system look like?
NOTES HERE – but there are issues already revealing themselves, in how this might work…which have made me doubt, that without the type of system which western folks hate, some form of totalitarian system, there is no way to re-work the system which rises above the mess we currently have.
Firstly, any divisive things, like religion and social ideology, would need to be seen as “individual group issues”, and therefore, not be built into the overarching fundamental building blocks. These items would of necessity, be private practices, and not violate any of the basic secular social rules (Public Rule System) (already starting to sound “Big Brothery”…) . Definitions the limitations of where and how these private practices could be practiced, would need to be outlined. In fact other than extremist POV’s, this is much the way which humans have learned to get along together without fighting to date. i.e. church on one corner, and a mosque on another corner…..
The issue with the current system, is that when a person does not agree with the Public Rule System, they are allowed to grow bitter and ferment their personality into extremist views, which then lead to harmful acts against those who they blame for their suffering.
So, the root of this discussion, is the problem of the bumping together of various “oil and water” ways of life.
These situations are personal, group, religious belief systems, ideological systems, which reveal themselves in all relationship types…. person to person, group to group, religious belief system to religious belief system, and ideology to ideology.
Science would need to be the base for rule making decisions, as it is “provable”, whereas rules and decisions based on subjective beliefs, would only be allowed in their approved areas.
This system would not be allowed to move out of the secular rule of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” realm. Any moves outside those parameters would be considered a move toward Nazism.
But anyone who was not willing to live under these types of restrictions, would necessarily need to agree to live in an area where everyone there agreed on living by those more stringent rules. So, in a way, it would be about “containing” extremist views.
Devout Christians could live in Devout Christian communities.
Devout Muslims could live in Devout Muslim communities.
These communities would be similar to Amish communities, where they are self-governed, but not allowed to infringe on the “public law”.
In essence, this would be everyone having a place where they fit.
The fundamentals of “acting without harming ourselves or others” have many similarities in most cultures.
The only way which this overarching system could work is where only those willing to live in “mixed customs” environments, accepting everyone around them as autonomous, would be allowed to live in “secular land” governed by a Public Rule System.
It is not difficult to find these basic building blocks, as most cultures already have them in their legal foundations. So, in a sense, it would be stripping away the laws which SHOULD NOT be included in Public Rule System rules, but could be included in regional and traditional rules and laws, inside their allotted “area”.
On the other hand, secular land which would only governed by the secular society rules, would allow
Only persons who were willing to live in a “purely secular” environment would be able to live in “secular-land”.
Workable rules and laws,
Rules constituting what “other persons property” means.
Then, rules relating to personal property –
Do not take what is others property.
Do not destroy what is others property.
Respect other persons property.
Anyone who was not willing to follow the social rules, would be placed in an environment which suited them.
Would this setting of strict code of living be acceptable to 21st century persons?
If this type of code, allowing those who wish to live together in multicultural harmony is not a suitable environment, then the question needs to be asked:
“Why? If one is able to live by the standards and values which they now live in, but, for example, not be able to force extremist view on others, then why would that be unacceptable?”
—- feels like a dead end road……
2 thoughts on “Why Only the Worldview “Reality” can save humankind – Part 2”
Wow, lots to consider. Though I cannot imagine living in a community where everyone thinks exactly the same. To me, that is a horror! But yes, I know there are a surprising number of people who would probably think that was a dandy idea. I’d prefer to stick with the multi-cultural/religious/political viewpoints community; so much to learn from each other; an adventure 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Where this was heading, was for all folks who were willing to live in “Multi-cultural setting” to live there, but that groups who were closed-minded (one way, our way) and could only think of either assimilation or annihilation as answers to anyone who doesn’t believe the same as them, could live in groups where everyone DID beleive the same as them……. but it felt like a dead end road…. i.e. who would accept this way of doing things. ended up feeling like totalitarianism…..