Dynamic Transformation of Static Reporting of Global Processes
TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 15 Apr 2013
Anthony Judge – TRANSCEND Media Service
Suggestions for Process-Oriented Titles of Global Issue Reports
Annex of Eliciting a Universe of Meaning — within a global information society of fragmenting knowledge and relationships (2013)
Introduction
The main paper discusses the manner in which meaning is widely associated with “states”. This is evident in political efforts to create unions of states, exemplified by the United States, the League of Arab States, or the Commonwealth of Independent States, as well as by the many proposals at the regional level (United States of Europe, United States of Africa, United States of Latin America, United States of Latin Africa. The United Nations is so considered at the global level, as with various proposals for world government. The “uniting” of states is framed as the most meaningfully desirable path forward.
This language is evident in reports such as those on the State of the Union (or the State of the Nation), the state of the environment, or as generated by the UN Specialized Agencies (or their national equivalents) with respect to their sectors of preoccupation: health, children, education, employment, food security, fisheries, safety, democracy, population, security (threat), environment, judiciary, media, cities, business. The approach may be extended to the State of the World or to the State of the Planet. Government policy may be a special preoccupation of a “department of state” or of a “state department”. A “state” focus is used to frame issues of financial status, economic status, legal status, or civil status. The frame is used as much with respect to individuals as to communities: health status, educational status, social status, marital status, and the like. A “state of comfort” is commonly a preoccupation.
The frame is intimately related to that of statutes and constitutions — with the latter echoed at the individual level as in “healthy constitution”. Curiously consciousness is also framed in terms of “states”, as in the recognition of a variety of human mental states, states of consciousness, and even a state of madness. This extends to recognition of emotional states, including a “state of terror”, a “state of fear”, a “state of agony”, and to their contrary: “state of happiness“, “state of grace“, and the “blessed state of the righteous” (according to Christianity). A “state of holy matrimony” may be recommended.
Given the increasingly disastrous “state of the world”, and that foreseen for the future, it is appropriate to ask whether another language might enable meaning to be carried otherwise — and potentially more imaginatively and fruitfully. There is clearly a fundamental problem with respect to the relationship between states of any kind — one which obscures consideration of the dynamics which may be vital to the essence of meaning. This is only too evident in the case of Israel-Palestine, India-Pakistan, North Korea-South Korea, and the like — as with the “two-state solutions” proposed in the first case.
Seemingly, it may be argued, the “cracks” between the “states” cannot be effectively addressed through the language of “state”. For the individual this is exemplified by bipolar disorder. It is especially curious that reference should be made to a “state of war” or a “state of conflict”, when both are especially characterized by a destructve dynamic. Surely a contradiction in terms?
To the extent that happiness is a recognized “state”, of relevance is the much-cited preoccupation with Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness in the United States Declaration of Independence. How is a state to be meaningfully pursued?
Curiously the focus on states is intimately related to a preoccupation with economic growth and economic development — as the pursiit of collective net worth — even when challenged as needing to have a “human face“. There is an expectation that “states” should grow and develop eternally in some way — avoiding or eliminating problematic “states” — and thereby embodying a quality of sustainability.
A further implication is that somehow, by associating the states together in some special (“magical”) way as yet to be discovered, a state of sustainable viability will be definitively established — despite challenges which become increasingly obvious (The Consensus Delusion: mysterious attractor undermining global civilization as currently imagined, 2011; Ungovernability of Sustainable Global Democracy? Towards engaging appropriately with time, 2011). The illusion that the component states will then “work” together, when so assembled, recalls the “clockwork” illusion of biologists relating to the creation of life from its well-known chemical components.
PLEASE CONTINUE READING THE PAPER IN THE ORIGINAL – laetusinpraesens.org
This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 15 Apr 2013.
Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: Dynamic Transformation of Static Reporting of Global Processes, is included. Thank you.
If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.
This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.