Of course Bucky was present in what you wrote or he wouldn't have come to mind, it was all over your thinking and writing. No worries.
On this: "He believed that specialization deprived humans of comprehensive understanding—inevitably causing us to leave responsibility and social action to others due to feelings of isolation and futility. I promise to further explore Fuller’s views of interdependence we in future issues." That was new to me, though I've read a bit of his work. One could say that in the same way the military and corporations move people around constantly within the organization and geographically, in order to reduce the formation of human bonds, the way we set up our economies around specialization served those in power to insure only a very few had the broad education and perspective to apply any critique or effective change to that system. Look at how academia essentially eats its own young and there is another reflection of that "setting each other on ourselves" instead of addressing the real imbalances of power.
The way Bucky thinks about us all showing up instinctively to effect change is a wonderful way to consider this in light of the "activated as white blood cells for the planet" metaphor. We all just show up near the surface that needs addressing. We don't need to know exactly what is going on or what needs to be done, we just do the work.
Off to read the full Anand article, thanks for that as well.
Thanks for the beautiful addition, Peter. Bucky could see 100 years ago that the deep specialization culture in our society was both missing the big connections between things, and allowing people to grasp broader realities through having many different lenses in which to understand Universe. I doubt we would have had James Lovelock or Lynn Margulis without Fuller, at least not in the way their gifts materialized. So much of what Bucky saw, wrote about, and lectured on was prophetic of where we find ourselves today. He has an overly technocratic solutioning lens for my taste these days, but within his thinking, there is still so much resonance for a different "critical" path to a healthier planet.
Of course Bucky was present in what you wrote or he wouldn't have come to mind, it was all over your thinking and writing. No worries.
On this: "He believed that specialization deprived humans of comprehensive understanding—inevitably causing us to leave responsibility and social action to others due to feelings of isolation and futility. I promise to further explore Fuller’s views of interdependence we in future issues." That was new to me, though I've read a bit of his work. One could say that in the same way the military and corporations move people around constantly within the organization and geographically, in order to reduce the formation of human bonds, the way we set up our economies around specialization served those in power to insure only a very few had the broad education and perspective to apply any critique or effective change to that system. Look at how academia essentially eats its own young and there is another reflection of that "setting each other on ourselves" instead of addressing the real imbalances of power.
The way Bucky thinks about us all showing up instinctively to effect change is a wonderful way to consider this in light of the "activated as white blood cells for the planet" metaphor. We all just show up near the surface that needs addressing. We don't need to know exactly what is going on or what needs to be done, we just do the work.
Off to read the full Anand article, thanks for that as well.
Thanks for the beautiful addition, Peter. Bucky could see 100 years ago that the deep specialization culture in our society was both missing the big connections between things, and allowing people to grasp broader realities through having many different lenses in which to understand Universe. I doubt we would have had James Lovelock or Lynn Margulis without Fuller, at least not in the way their gifts materialized. So much of what Bucky saw, wrote about, and lectured on was prophetic of where we find ourselves today. He has an overly technocratic solutioning lens for my taste these days, but within his thinking, there is still so much resonance for a different "critical" path to a healthier planet.