Beyond emotions of levity, what does it mean in practicality to generate policy based on our conception of the entire human species as a unified organic whole? As some readers have pointed out, the analogy of the human body as a model for harmonious and prosperous social organization is not the only conception of society that has abounded in popular discourse. Models of social organization that conceive of society as a chance conglomerate of individuals colliding like high-energy atoms into each other and the structures of their container have been espoused implicitly by many western modes of social expression. Alternative models have organized social compartments as a mechanistic interaction of separate but mutually affecting definite parts under central control, like systems of clockwork in a watch or a game of billiards on a pool table, under the puppeteering influence of corporate or partisan power. How does the analogy of the body represent unity of purpose within a human life and diversity of tissues experiencing this united purpose but diverse functionality? What psychological tendency causes rational people to respond instinctively and emotionally to the vision of unity with paralysis and fear of tyrannical uniformity? There are two beliefs that are highly linked: 1) faith in the principle of the underlying oneness of humankind, and 2) the conviction that until all women and men alive become urgently wrapped up in the community affairs of their world and become active protagonists of the construction of a New World Order, transformation will be sub-par. In what sense do these two beliefs flow dynamically into and from one another?
Please comment below.
achieving coherence 