This blog will aim to begin with 2 parallel lines of inquiry, but please do mail me at wcbn007@easynet.co.uk if you'd like to co-edit a 3rd, 4th, 5th

I am qualified by education to testify on this as a mathematician

By passion I am studying as much as I can on what Gandhi meant by truth

so these are the twin lines you will see being exoplored most; many come form comnversations I am having to try and learn what concrened commun ities wish to action- so do mail me if something stiulates a question or a possible connection

from a world citizen debate

chris writes 20 april 2006 as part of a discussion which began with the announcement of a major cross-religions forum happening in Washington Dc next month


I largely agree with what Wolfgang states below but I can also imagine that
it may segment peoples into very different groups. Is part of the needle we citizens need to simultaneously thread: to anticipate the different groups? and to see what each will have to give up before they see that the other side is harmonise a deeper democracy for almost all of us - (see the approach of www.deep-democracy.net which explains this type of problem through many experiences, especially those fused from the recent challenges of S Africa)

Group 1 may be those who disagree in one or more ways (including eg those who
agree with truth but also need a god to pray, celebrate, comnfess or otherwise
atract higher order ethics around)

Group 2 may disagree that truth is any sense near to the end road we could all try to rise to in a networked world. Perhaps some people of East or South who lead a misearble life in poverty (a lot because rish systems have accidentally or knowingly compounded it) are sustained by a belief in an after-life. There are other ways of putting this too. In HIV ravaged areas of Africa, it does seem that mentors originally from such groups as the salvation army are helping youth renew community. Perhaps I am trying to say that in some cases the truth being confronted is so harsh that I couldn't imagine doing it without a spiritual or dream world to reinspire me

Group 3 would seem to me to be leaders of large organisations who govern with
measures and other systemic means that in every way dillute truth and depth of
purpose. Unfortunaltely, since the spreadsheet's unwelcome birth as the PC world's killer application circa 1985, most management professions have profited hugely from a maths that dilutes true relationships, and separates their own business cases however desystemising of truth or transparency these become; as have the business media and more than I would wish Western Busuiness Schools etc; as seemingly have those at the top of many governments. Unfortunately when true leadership involves the hard work of detecting and helping to resolve conflicts, there's a huge market for telling another type of image-riding leader that's too complex and all he has to do is improve the numbers. Such numerical sleight of hand is the greatest evil a qualified mathematician can ever let happen but then not many in the measurement professions these days turn out to have been primarily educated as mathematicians. An irony I can't quite believe but which seems to be evident the more I research it.

Are there other major groups; and if I have erroneously described one of the 3
groups above, I am happy to debate that individually until we can come to a re-
editing to share with all

chris macrae wcbn007@easynet.co.uk

PS This has also set me off on a blog I'd be happy to co-edit : is it possible
any longer to value truth and make a decent living
http://valuetruth.blogspot.com I don't know how many of you have read the
latest research on unseen wealth which shows that all the measures that large
organsiations govern by have no correlation with compounding future wealth let
alone health! And in most cases are close to the idea maths for systemically
dedstroying true relationships between the diffent peoples any organsiation
communally connects in exchange. Consequently I aim to put up as many co-
edited value blogs as I can chipping away at how people and goverannce value all that organsied systems reach


Wofgang Extract
Dear Friends,

by talking clearly we also can clear our minds towards an authentic
representation of outer in fact reality within the mental world of symbols.

Only authenticity entails sanity - any deviation from authenticity causes
unhealthy development, be it social or biological. Do we agree?

I would like to express clearly and easily what TRUTH is.

If we realize and acknowledge that TRUTH is nothing else but coherent
relationships between the entities of All and Everything we will find
ourselves beyond any theoretical religious or political projections and
beyond any separation entirely united in existential needs and conditions in
the centre of everyday life.

Understood in exactly this way living in TRUTH is nothing but a natural
condition which we just need to let happen which Ramakrishna and others
obviously did.

a post I submitted today to the discussion at the leading egroup on community of practice on the value of colaboration

For or Against Collaboration as a natural state of mind

I agree with both of you

Collaboration is a systemic word appying to every level of human relations system from human being up through organisational typologies to whether globalisation (a higher order of connectivity and demand on us to colaborate) sustains a collaboration world or the end of our species

At least 40 years ago, it was found that the number 1 reason people individually fall through poverty nets is having very weak social networks - so if children up are unlucky with not enough familial collaboration or wretched communal services, lost collaboration is the greatest destroying agent in the potential of a human life -one up for Fred I presume

however mathematicially no scoring system I could imagine constructing could be mathematicially more perfect than spreadsheeting separability the precise way current accounting is governed since 1985- so as people are conditioned by systems cycle after cycle, I would expect large organsiations ruled by tangible accounting and global economics monopolies to be the least collaborative places mankind has ever designed -one down

http://clubofcity.blogspot.com somewhere in between is the city whose collaboration capabilty I have been researching for the last 2 years; we now have about 20 atributes on which to score how a city conditions its citizenbs freedoms or otherwise to collaborate; even a world leader as a knowledge collaboration city (you can index that by googling the combination of thsoe 3 words and a city's name) in the North or West only scores about 12; whereas most non-West Coast US cities score about 6; West Coast is an area I can't profile because its so segmented depending whether you are in or oput of creating online software; (ex-)commonwealth rich cities -eg across canada and Australia) score pretty well; cities in the poorest countries scores correlate almost copmpletely with corruption or lack thereof

Bottom Line it's in human nature and very advantageous through time to collaborate (with networks it will be the defining criteria of the sustainability of all of us http://globalcharters.blogspot.com as 22 years of research has so far confrimed;
commiserate with humanity around the fact that most of our biggest systems penalise the hell out of you for collaborating, and even if you resist the conditioning impact over many cycles of being bossed not to collaborate is much more self-damaging to all your positive energy flows than you would hope it to be;

also, mass media has changed what the natural state of mind might be mapped to be over its 50 years of addictive intervention in some parts of the West
chris macrae wcbn007@easynet.co.uk
http://collaborationworld.blogspot.comhttp://valuetruth.blogspot.com