Although I am not a great believer myself, I do think that religious texts often contain common sense advice, wisdom and even profound insights in the human condition that transcend both the time, place and particular culture wherein such texts first emerged. Therefore, from time to time (and particularly at Christmas and Easter, but also at times when I feel morally or ethically challenged) I do tend to leaf through the Old Testament, the New Testament, The Ku'ran or even the seminal texts of other religions in order to find sayings, or parables, or metaphors around which my thoughts could focus in order to look at an issue or problem in a new light, from a different perspective.
Therefore, given that we have just celebrated Christmas and that we are faced with extremely important, I would even say defining debates in 2L as citizens of the Commonwalth of Democratic States, I picked up this morning the Old Testament and read some of the sayings contained in my favorite book, Proverbs.
After a few minutes, I stumbled upon [b:2t1h8y5q]Proverbs 29:18[/b:2t1h8y5q], which reads as follows:
[i:2t1h8y5q][b:2t1h8y5q][size=150:2t1h8y5q]
"Where there is no vision, the people perish:
but he that keepeth the law, happy is he."[/size:2t1h8y5q][/b:2t1h8y5q][/i:2t1h8y5q]
As soon as I read this, I realised how critical this insight is for the process we are currently going through. The vision we have for our community, and the laws we obey as its citizens, are not the opposed poles of irreconciliable approaches to the future of the CDS; to interpret them as such would establish a false, even dangerous dychotomy between two equally necessary and dynamic concepts, both vital for our continuing existence. Rather, it is the dialectical tension and energy generated by both as they interact with one another that constitute the driving force that defines us and drives us forward.
[b:2t1h8y5q]"Where there is no vision, the people perish":[/b:2t1h8y5q]
The first element of this Proverb tells us in stark terms that having a common vision is vital for any community; a lack of a coherent and shared vision (which does not, however, mean undisputed in all its constitutent parts) is fatal to any group of individuals who desire to share their exsistence with others; and this applies even more in Second Life that in Real Life, because in-world Foucault's famous means to command, control and punish citizens are almost non-existent. A shared understanding of one's community and basic consensus as to the direction it is heading are thefore utterly critical for its very future.
[b:2t1h8y5q]"...he that keepeth the law, happy is he."[/b:2t1h8y5q]
The second element of the Proverb lets us know that happiness for us all can only be found within the bounds of the rule of law - however we may define its nature. A shared democratic, prosperous, diverse life as a community is simply not sustainable without the existence of a fair, just, efficent and professional (in the sense of skilled and dedicated, NOT elitist and imperious!) legal foundation. A fundamental acceptance of the need for the respect of the rule of law in our community is a [i:2t1h8y5q]sine qua non[/i:2t1h8y5q] (ie. necessary but not sufficent) condition for the survival, happiness and prosperity of the CDS. It is only on this basis that our traders, builders, finaciers, entertainers, creatives, and all other citizens can thrive and enjoy their 2L existence -thereby contributing to the spiritual and material growth and prosperity of the entire community.
[b:2t1h8y5q]"..but..."[/b:2t1h8y5q]
This three--letter word is critical. This conjunction doesn't simply join two independent clauses; not does it contrast two opposites; it is, in its stark simplicity, the [i:2t1h8y5q]tertium quid[/i:2t1h8y5q], the middle term linking and setting in tension the two phrases discussed above. Out of this very creative tension arises the vital dynamic that can carry us forward; and ignoring any of these terms, or even radically disagreeing about the meaning of each, can and will be fatal to our future endeavours as citizens of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators.
Armed with this (personal; I do not claim that others may not be aware of it or something similar) insight, I spent the next hour or more sifting through a cross-section of the more recent debates that have animated those members of our community who are most active in CDS and post most often in this forum. It became utterly clear to me, t0 the extent to which I still entertained doubts about it before, that not only are we as a community not clear about the critical importance of the creative tension between vision and law, thus tending to oppose one to the other in a false dychotomy and thus give rise to a "broken middle" (to which I have referred before in one of my speeches before the Scientific Council) which inevitably hinders the consolidation of any (as Diderot aptly labels it) "architecture of trust" in the CDS - but that we even profoundly disagree as to the very nature and meaning of the terms "vision" and "law" themselves as they pertain to our Second Life endeavours.
This fundamental problem which exists right at the heart of our community -- and was first articulated (as rightly pointed out again by Diderot) in clear terms by Mikael Lunardi, then taken up by the Simplicity Party to justify its policy intiatives, and commented on at length by Ashcroft (in a modified dychotomy opposing experimenters and organisers) and a plethora of his critics in the context of the Judiciary Act, as well as by Gwyn (in the context of the nature and role of the Scientific Council) who, in exemplary fasion, clearly identified the rising tension between these two elements and seemed to resign herself to a "disenchantment of (2L) modernity" which inevitably leads to the ouster of "vision" by "law"-- must be uregently addressed if our community is to survive and prosper as opposed to be regularly shaken by violent conflicts leading to either the departure or the expulsion of those who, at any time, disagree with the then-acepted views of the majority. Such a cyclical pattern of expansion and contraction, repeating itself [i:2t1h8y5q]ad vitam aeternam[/i:2t1h8y5q] ( a pattern we seem well on our way of establishing, given the acrimonious nature of both past and present disputes affecting the CDS) will inevitably lead to stagnation, mediocrity, and even decay. It is simply not enough for a core group of "keepers of the flame" to perdure, as immovable rocks of granite weathering the howlings of the winds and fury of the waves during each tsunamy past, present, and future, and carry on their shoulders the vestiges of what remains after each such storm just to make the CDS "live another day" (and most probably see this pattern of growth and contraction, of boom and bust, be repeated again). In order to thrive and prosper as a community, we must all come together and develop a shared understanding of (1) what our vision for the future of the CDS is, (2) what exactly we understand by the idea of "the law" as a a founding and fundamental element in the way we conduct ourselves, and most importantly (3) how these two elements fit together in a creative tension, both in theory and practice, by re-founding the [i:2t1h8y5q]tertium quid[/i:2t1h8y5q], the "broken middle" without which we shall not only be unhappy in the immediate future, but surely perish as a community in the longer term.
In my humble opinion, none of the current factions has accurately identified the problem outlined above in all its complexity and urgency. Therefore, after having had lenghtly discussions with many of our citizens, both old and new, deeply involved in our debates or almost completely unaware of them- I have concluded, that a new faction must be founded that will expressly articulate and address these issues and propose a new way "Forward Not Back" (here I shemelessly plagiarise from the UK's "New Labor" party's slogan during its 2006 electoions) -by articulating its mission to promote "Democracy, Prosperity and Diversity in a Fair and Sustainable CDS".
But the issues and tensions embodied in [b:2t1h8y5q]Proverbs 29:18[/b:2t1h8y5q] cannot be reduced to being a purely electoral issue. They are both much more, and much less at the same time.
They are "much less" in the sense that the upcoming elections will not be conducted on, or decided by, exclusively such a debate, but ratherby a plethora of short- and medium-term policy platforms and strategies providing a very differnt focus for the voters than the more theoretical and principled debate I have outlined here.
They are "much more" in that they transcend the immediate issues of an electoral process recurring every six months, and affect -nay determine our very future happiness and existence. We as a community must carry on this discussion outside our factions and outside the realm of competitive politics, in a truly deliberative fashion,based on the twin principles of absolute inclusion of ALL our citizens (and not just of the more vocal and regular contributors to our forums or in-world meetings and debates) and respect of th deep diversity of our individual opinions, out of which the "best argument" will neverthless emerge and be accepted by all, in truly democratic fashion.
It is therefore in the hope that we will all set aside our partisan differences and be able to come together as a communty in an "architecture of trust" fully capable of addressing the inherent, dynamic tension (to quote one of Habermas' seminal works) "Between Facts and Norms" - between vision and law and reconstitute, together, a shared meaning of not only these two terms, "BUT" also and most importantly, of the [i:2t1h8y5q]tertium quid[/i:2t1h8y5q], the "broken middle" which transforms them from a destructive dychotomy into a creative and dynamic source of energy for our community that I have started this thread.
I am currently working on my own contribution and will post it as soon as I feel it accurately represents my position on this critical subject of debate. If others wish to contribute at any time, I hope they will be free to so so -in a purely deliberative and constructive manner, fully respectful of both the spirit and letter of the "architecture of trust" invoked by Diderot, as well as of the force and import of the better argument as opposed to as to the most vociferous and strident posting. It is only in such a spirit that we can hope to carry forward those dreams and ideals which constitute the very foundation of the Commonwealth of Democratic Simulators" and which, in one way or the other, represent the most important reasons why each and every one of us has joined this community as a citizen.
