The Omnius Manifesto

The Omnius Manifesto
The Omnius Manifesto

A proposed solution to corporate irresponsibility and the
degradation of the human environment by redefining profit

download intro PDF: 
download manifesto PDF:

The corporation as a living system

Capitalism and the corporate culture, despite spinning off a virtual cornucopia of benefits for humanity as a side effect of its obsessive drive for profit, has become more and more destructive to both the quality of human consciousness and the quality of the ecosystem.  Capitalism is about making a profit and the corporations which populate capitalism are profit generating organisms.  In this, they’re not very different from biological organisms.  All living systems have to operate at a profit, that is increase their energy and substance, as well as propagate, in order to survive.

There is another similarity between corporations and living systems.  All living systems survive, increase and propagate by consuming the resources of their environment and successfully competing with other living systems for the same resources. And finally, like corporations, all living systems not only consume resources but transform them, thus adding value.

However all living systems, (with the exception of those created by industrial man) from bacteria to rain forests, whatever their rate and mode of consumption, ultimately create and put back more resources than they consume, with the ultimate return being the decomposition of their own bodies after death.  For the most part, all organisms are not only ecologically neutral, (contributing as much as they consume) but ecologically positive, (contributing more than they consume). One shining example of this principle is bacteria, which break down all sorts of matter, both organic and inorganic, into nutrients that not only can they use, but directly or indirectly can be used by all life.

All life is ecologically positive

Capitalism is ecologically negative

Recently however, industrial man has reversed this process, consuming far more than he contributes, creating mountains, rivers and clouds of unusable and toxic waste, and threatening the very ecosystem that supports him, so much so that in less than a century, a mere instant in the lifespan of the planet, the natural balance has begun to be destabilized and we are teetering on the brink of unprecedented scarcity in such basics as uncontaminated water and food, fossil fuels and clean air. 

There are many proposals on how to fix capitalism and the corporate system but most are looking to either elevate the consciousness of management (with the idea that an increase there would trickle down the ladder of corporate practices), or elevate the consciousness of consumers, (with the idea that informed buying would influence corporate practices from the bottom up.)  Despite the merits of initiatives such as these I fear they are doomed to only a moderate success, so long as the way that the corporations profit does not reflect their consumption of resources, both natural and human.

Balancing production versus consumption

The way in which corporations now figure the ratio of profit to loss is basically double entry bookkeeping.  One column is for outflow, the cumulative cost of doing business; the other is for inflow, the income derived from selling goods, services and the like.  If the sum of column two exceeds the sum of column one, the corporation is profitable and viable; if not it eventually goes bankrupt.  No other considerations whatsoever really count.  If the bottom line does not show a profit, the corporation is not profitable.  End of story. Every other consideration, consumption, pollution, fairness, social consequence, aesthetics, ecological devastation etc., is reduced to profit or loss, i.e. is either an easily affordable luxury on the part of a corporation, or has to favorably influence the bottom line.

This, as far as it goes, is the way it has to be – even the way it should be.  Corporations are subject to approximately the same energy economics as living systems.  They have to make a profit, or at least not operate at a loss, in order to survive.  In addition, no one would either operate or invest in a Corporation that consistently operated at a loss.

Redefining profit (as whole system profit)

The problem though is not that corporations operate for a profit; it is that economics not reality defines this profit. Another way of saying this is that the corporation makes the profit, not humanity and the global ecology. As a matter of fact, corporations regularly profit at the expense of humanity and the global ecology, consuming and/or destroying a large part of the total system in order to realize a relatively minor profit for themselves.

At this time in history, a Corporation can destroy an ecosystem, pollute a river and impoverish an indigenous culture, but if it makes a monetary profit, if it costs less to destroy part of the world than the earnings such destruction engenders, the corporation is deemed profitable — and the investors realize a comfortable return on their investments.

That is not a real profit!  That is not a profitable corporation but a subsidized one that operates at a substantial loss. By who is it subsidized?  By the countries that house it, by the ecosystem of the globe, by you and I, and by every person that walks or will walk the earth.

It is clear that we have to build accountability and responsibility into the corporate mind. But the question is how to do this? I believe the most realistic answer starts with redefining profitability, in other words making it profitable for the corporation to contribute to the humansphere and unprofitable for it to consume without recycling and restoring.

And the only way to do this is to make corporations accountable for the real costs of their doing business, to make them fully responsible for the consumption and the destruction they cause, and to make them pay for the real costs of correcting it.

In this context a profitable bottom line would still be a surplus of income over expenditure, but the expenditure would include a monetization of the consumption and/or destruction of human and natural resources, and the income would include monetary compensation for the restoration of the human and natural resource pool. Corporations and governments working together could accomplish this by monetizing or otherwise calibrating social and ecological consumption and balancing it out with contributions to the whole system which would either be actual or financial.


Of course this will be a difficult task to accomplish but it can be facilitated by interfacing it with the corporation’s normal, accounting practices.  What I would propose would be changing from double entry to quadruple entry bookkeeping, adding a column on one side for system depletion or consumption and a column on the other side for system contributions.  In that way one could keep track of whether the corporation, viewed as a part of the total system of the humanity and the earth which supports it (i.e. the humansphere), was really operating at a profit or a loss. And if not, calculate to what extent the Corporation is withdrawing from the common property of all the sentient beings on earth.

Reverse taxation

Corporations then would be taxed for the real costs of cleaning up the environment, replenishing resources and (as if this is possible) reversing human suffering and the degradation of everyday life. Overseeing of this process would be a quasi-governmental function (on a global level).  I can imagine a sort of global IRS, or ERS (External Revenue Service) which would further tax corporations which are system negative, reduce taxation or credit and reward corporations which are system positive and neither further tax nor credit corporations which are ecologically neutral.

With this system of two-way taxation, corporations would not be taxed solely on the basis of traditional profitability but also on net loss or gain to the social and ecological system.  Profitability then would be redefined from a net monetary gain without regard to the whole system – to a net monetary gain balanced by its impact on the system. A system positive corporation would be proportionally rewarded, and a system negative Corporation would be heavily and proportionally taxed. With this system it would even be possible for a corporation to turn a profit when it was running at a monetary loss, or conversely, for a corporation to operate at a net loss, even though profitable in traditional terms. This alone, without necessitating any other changes whatsoever would lead corporate energies in new and positive directions.

Redirecting human nature

Marxism failed by not taking into account two aspects of human nature, selfishness and the survival drive. Margaret Thatcher was of the opinion that due to the same considerations of human nature, there were no viable alternatives to capitalism. However by redefining profitability you neither have to change human nature nor abandon capitalism! Profitability can be redefined by extending its beneficiaries from the individual or corporate selves (as well as other collective selves like family, religion, and nation) to the whole self system of the humansphere. This redefinition takes advantage of human nature and redirects it to benefit the world rather than plundering it. This is just the concept of enlightened self-interest expressed on the corporate level. **

If we redefined what it is to be profitable, neither human selfishness, nor the survival drive, nor the drive to corporate profitability would have to be changed.

Initially this would lead to a reduction in government revenue from corporate taxation. However this would be more than compensated for by a drastic reduction in expenditures for government services, subsidies, regulatory services, and the size of the social safety net. Many if not all of these governmental functions are now necessitated by corporate irresponsibility, but in the new order, where corporations are taxed or compensated for the way they impact social and environmental systems, the need for many of these government services will be dramatically reduced, and others will be assumed by the corporations themselves.  In addition the consumption and destruction of our planet will be gradually reversed as corporations find it more profitable to conserve and restore to consume and destroy.

Further benefits

The ways in which corporations can contribute are many, and the surface is not even scratched yet.  Once corporations grasp the fact that minimizing consumption and destruction and maximizing contribution and restoration can impact their profitability, saving more than it costs, the immense ingenuity of entrepreneurial capitalism will be turned to conservationist, ecological, social and humanitarian concerns, and the degradation of the natural environment and human consciousness will be quickly and profitably reversed, without the need for further regulation, corporate altruism or individual enlightenment.

Realistically, we can expect an increase in corporate altruism and both ecological and humanitarian awareness when and only when these qualities become economically advantageous.  Once this happens, corporations will value these traits in their employees and the propaganda/education machine of our society will begin to teach them in earnest.

Of course the monetization and/or calibration of negative and positive, societal and ecological consumption is going to be a difficult, contentious and time-consuming process, but it is doable.  Not only that, it will quickly spawn new technologies, new industries, new professions and above all – a new consciousness.

It will also be expensive, but only by the old standards of double entry bookkeeping and consumption profit.  By the new standards of contribution profit, where contribution is balanced against consumption, it will be immensely profitable — in dollar terms but even more, in environmental and human terms.

Not only that, but making corporations accountable for the damage they do will immensely diminish the cost of governing and running a country, from sustaining its infrastructure to providing human services, and will immensely decrease the necessary tax burden on the populace.  To develop only one example, cleaning up the environment, phasing out unhealthy and adulterated foods, cleansing the water supply and improving working conditions will immensely decrease the need for healthcare and thus the costs. However, these and other benefits will only accrue if our corporations can be made strictly accountable and billable for the way they consume our world.

Benefits to Human Consciousness

Last but and certainly not least will be the elevation of the human consciousness itself. Holocaust survivor Eli Weisel said of the Nazis “they killed the God in themselves”.  To a lesser extent but just as surely, corporations under their present charter tend to kill the God in all of us. They kill the God in their employees, they kill the God in the corporate officers, and they kill the God in the consumer, or at least try to. Why, because no matter how well-intentioned they are, and for the most part they are not very well-intentioned, profit and nothing but profit is the bottom line. Of course they will give lip service to all sorts of high ideals like integrity, green business practices and service to mankind, and sometimes even accomplish a modicum of that, but when profitability threatens viability, crueler – I mean cooler heads emerge, ideals are sacrificed and survival at any cost quickly becomes the name of the game.

This is not evil. To quote the “godfather” it is simply “business”.  Business in the present economic structure, with the present definition of profitability, is like that. No one is to blame and everyone is to blame. It is the system, and the system kills the God in everyone that the system touches.

We can try to change human nature but the truth is we are not going to succeed very well. In fact for the most part the very people who are trying to change it, are faced with the choice of either bucking the system and being made powerless or joining it and being corrupted. The only hope is to change the system itself.  But since Karl Marx there is not been a really compelling vision of a new, economic order. Communism failed not because its ideals were evil, but because it ignored the evil aspects of human nature, learning from that mistake, the Omnius Manifesto proposes to harness and redirect the “evil” forces of selfishness and survival consciousness rather than denying them.

Paradoxically however, if anything can change human nature it is harnessing and redirecting these very forces of selfishness and survival consciousness. It’s not that we’re going to change human nature, because human nature is what it is. But human nature is two sided.  Just as we can alienate or kill the God in us, we can also bring it out.  And for the most part being expected, nay required to be positive and loving, to do good deeds, to contribute to society, and to be part of a social order which encourages and rewards that, not only makes people happy, it brings out their Godness.

Wars, violence, criminal behavior, social unrest, marital discord, teenage ennui, litigiousness, all are symptoms, symptoms of a defective system, a system born of the illusion of separation, of competitive individualism. The present economic system, where the only mandate for corporations is to make profit for their stockholders, was conceived from that consciousness. However the son has become the father and now corporate consciousness is eroding even the competitive individualism that spawned it.  It is making almost everyone into corporate zombies, mindless of the devastation they wreak and ravenous for any vestige of living flesh not yet consumed.

It is time to evolve that system.

Enlightened self-interest**

Enlightened self-interest is the realization that ultimately one’s individual self interest is dependent on the survival and stability of the All, the furthest extension of the system that holds the individual and which the individual is dependent. People of little or no imagination and education have trouble imagining that they are dependent on any system that goes beyond their individual survival efforts. At best they understand that their survival is dependent on the survival of an economic unit like their family, their religion, their country or their Corporation. At this moment in time however the consciousness is becoming widespread that our individual and species survival is dependent upon the survival of the present ecological balance of the Earth. This is the minimum consciousness that qualifies as enlightened self-interest. Actually our survival is directly dependent on the survival of the present ecological balance of the whole cosmic system that encompasses us. Not necessarily the survival of any one element, be it a species or a star, but the survival of the cosmic metabolism, the cosmic ecology, the cosmic Tao.

Fortunately at the present the powers of humankind to nurture or consume and destroy, are still concentrated mainly on Earth, with extremely limited forays into the space of our solar system.  But that is enough!  We can destroy our planetary home or we can wake up in time and garden it.  It is at once an opportunity, a training and a test.  We can seize the opportunity, master the training and pass the test, or we can fail and destroy ourselves.  This opportunity is being presented to us on every imaginable level from individual to social to ecological. The economic level is not an inconsiderable part of this emerging, multidimensional consciousness. Whole system economics, as a fractal of enlightened self-interest, is an essential step that needs to be taken without delay.

Guaranteed profitability

In Whole Systems Economics, individuals and corporations would largely give up the expectation of realizing huge profits from their endeavors.  One could argue then, and with justification, that this would de-motivate people to the extent that many of the industries whose fruits we now enjoy, would either not have come into being in the first place, or, would be a shadow of their present self. That is, without the incentives and pressures of the free production-place and marketplace we would experience a “Russian” economy with the shelves are bare of choices, and the quality of what is produced is shoddy at best.

The best way to protect against this happening would be to guarantee profitability so that along with reduced profit they would be reduced risk. With guaranteed profitability the launching of a new enterprise, particularly one that is friendly to the humansphere, would take on more of the character of a conservative investment than a wild risk, and would attract a totally different and one would hope more responsible kind of entrepreneur.

With guaranteed profitability, the governing body (eventually a global government) would enter into a contractual agreement with the entrepreneurial parties. The state would guarantee reasonable profitability, guidance and support where applicable, and even perhaps some funding. The entrepreneurial parties would invest their financial, intellectual and sweat equity and both parties would agree on the acceptable outcomes which would qualify to a fulfillment of the contract as well as the degree of guaranteed profit.

Once again I realize that this will place an enormous evaluative and regulatory burden on government. However it is no different than what happens once the need for regulatory body is acknowledged, the legislation proposed and passed and the regulatory body set up. At the present time however, the regulation of each industry is politically hampered by government having to go through a separate legislative process, which starts with the necessity of establishing the need for such regulation, and is hampered by the anti-regulation efforts of the industry lobbyists. Once the new system is in place, the case for regulation will not have to be argued and regulation will not have to be subject to the political process in every new field, a process that results in a too little – too late – too compromised solution. Instead regulation and the setting up of a watchdog agency will be automatic – perhaps even funded in part by the industry itself. In essence it is little different than what happens now when say an electric company proposes damming up a river and has to do an environmental impact study.  The only significant difference will be that every new industry will be subject to examination and regulation.

Nothing I am proposing in the regulatory scheme is altogether new and radical. However at the present time these regulatory considerations are obstacles to be gotten around in the effort to maximize profit. What I’m proposing is that a reasonable profit be guaranteed to industries that agrees to self regulate. That is in return for guaranteeing a profit to humanity, humanity guarantees a profit to the industry.


The humansphere: the whole system of which one’s physical body is a part and by which one’s physical body is sustained and nurtured.

Selfishness: the illusion of oneself as a separate thing rather than a connected being, and the extension of this identity to all of one’s possessions and the extended selves. It arises from identification with one’s body. The antidote or awakening is to clear or disidentify with this false identity and realize one’s connection with the whole system.

Extended selves: All extensions of the illusion of oneself as a separate thing, customarily referred to in the possessive i.e. “my”, as in my body, my personality, my house, my family, my team, my country and it goes without saying… my corporation.

Survival consciousness: the root of all life and the engine of evolution is the urgent motivation to survive, thrive and procreate.  It cannot and should not be weakened or extinguished! However it must be redirected from one’s physical body and its extensions, to the humansphere. Otherwise the humansphere will be irremediably damaged.

God: the realization all of one’s real identity as universal consciousness. Also the disidentification with one’s body (as a separate thing) and subsequent identification with real identity. Also the extension of this realization to the perception of all sentient beings.


The case for limited globalism

Of course, none of this can happen without a global government, and one that has powers of taxation and regulation. No one is more aware than I am of the countless difficulties and disadvantages associated with this.  However we have to all face the fact that we are one species sharing one planet. What one country does to its population, or takes out of the Earth, or adds to the water or the sky affects all of us. On the face of it any proposal that rests on global government would seem to be unrealistic in the extreme.  However, given the fact that the problems we are facing are global in scope, is what is really unrealistic is anything short of a global solution – and any global solution presupposes some level of global governing body.

The solution I would propose is a multilevel governmental scheme or global federation, where global issues and only global issues are the jurisdiction of the global government, national affairs and only national affairs are the jurisdiction of national governments and local affairs and only local affairs of the jurisdiction of local governments. Sort of like federal, state and city governments in the United States. Global government does not necessitate the total giving up of national and local autonomy, but where basic human and ecological issues are concerned we are one species sharing one Earth and no one nation, state, city, corporation or individual has the right to consume or destroy any aspect of that.

The end of nonprofits

This would also be the end of nonprofit corporations because every Corporation would be treated identically. Every Corporation that can demonstrate that it put back more than it took would be treated as a nonprofit, or better yet subject to a reverse taxation income flow. Conversely any corporation that operated at a deficit to the social or physical environment, whether it was for profit or nonprofit, would be taxed accordingly. This would mean that some corporations whose profitability is marginal and whose environmental cost is substantial would be taxed out of viability. While others who operated without profit or even at a loss, but were system positive, would be compensated into viability.

(Furthermore, I deem it axiomatic, that any corporation which is significantly, system negative should be so severely taxed that it is impossible for them to show a profit and remain and economically viable, no matter how great their unbalanced, consumption derived income would be.)

★ ★ ★

download intro PDF:
download manifesto PDF:

 Some Rights ReservesPermission to share, publish, or distribute this work is granted under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States license.  For details or for a summary of key terms, please see:

About Dr. Jeffrey Eisen, Ph.D.

The creation of PsychoNoetics is the life's work of Dr. Jeffrey S. Eisen, an academically trained psychologist and psychotherapist. Dr. Eisen's discoveries brought him to a breakthrough expansion of Freud's id, ego and super-ego structural model of the psyche called the Enoe, and a revolutionary vision of the Self-Illuminated Human. Dr. Eisen is a gifted speaker, facilitator and author of hundreds of unpublished essays, four books, and a forthcoming one titled The De-Programmed Human. Playing 20 Questions With God, An Introduction to the Clearing Path of PsychoNoetics is both an engaging overview of the development of PsychoNoetics, and a comprehensive guide to applying it to your life. Oneness Perceived, A Window Into Enlightenment is a monumental body of work that attempts a unified field theory from the viewpoint of nonduality with academic precision and rigor, and stands to become a key reference within the alternative scientific community. He has appeared in an EnlightenNext webinar with Ken Wilber, Deepak Chopra, Barbara Marx Hubbard, Brian Robertson, and Andrew Cohen, recorded online interviews with EnlightenNext Magazine, and collaborated with the first director of the Institute of Noetic Science (IONS) who inspired the name PsychoNoetics.
This entry was posted in blog, humanomics, humansphere and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to The Omnius Manifesto

  1. Pingback: Introducing the Omnius Manifesto | Jeff Eisen, Ph.D.

  2. Pingback: Currency, Capital and Evolution | Jeff Eisen, Ph.D.

  3. Pingback: Profitability re-defined for One World |

  4. Pingback: Numbers never lie: Occupy Wall Street and American Socio-economic Inequality | Negarra Akili Kudumu

  5. Pingback: Energy-Backed Currency | Jeff Eisen, Ph.D.

  6. Joe, Oxnard, CA says:

    It’s nice to think of ways humankind might live harmoniously with the environment. I think this question really has to be answered by developing countries that have “gotten to the party late”. It’s not fair to tell Chinese people and Africans that they can’t have flat screen t.v.s and cars. I think we need to convert to nuclear power. I think we need to work hard to make the most out of biomass fuels, solar power and wind power.

    • I agree, but I also think that most of those things are not necessary for any of us. Jeff

      • Patrick Tolley says:

        Considering that these vanities are a fairly recent “evil” commodity born of the corporate system, people lacking these have never had them, and wanting them has only destroyed their harmony, I would hope such a change would lead to a sort of cultural renaissance.

  7. Light says:

    The one innocent flaw is believing that change will look similar to the present. The real power behind the prevailing winds of Occupy is the core of its ideal being anarchist in nature. The GA modality is the change. What we do with it is the future. The past is the economy. If you get a chance, check out the “Spider and the Starfish” and “This Time is Different” and you can see the future as an undefined choice we all make together. Unplanned and uncharted. See you there!!

  8. I like this idea. There are few ways I can think of to (responsibly) shift the American individualist self-interest paradigm, and I genuinely think this would do it. I do, however, have a couple of questions. First, what all would be entered into the two new accounting columns, and who would be responsible for calculating them? With double entry bookkeeping we already have a serious problem with corporations padding the income side of their sheets, and given that the quantification of actual cost to the humansphere (or actual benefit) could be quite subjective in many cases, these things could not be left to the accounting departments of said corporations. Second, does this apply to all businesses? I think it should, but the third and fourth columns will be very difficult to quantify for the many and diverse small businesses out there. A budding small business that provides a niche good or service may be, in the long run, a great benefit to the community, but earl in its existence it can barely turn a traditional profit, let alone be sure that it is positively balancing all the consumption it must do just in order to establish itself.

    These are not criticism of the idea, merely questions I had while reading it, and that I would like to discuss.

    • Dear Bryson
      let me respond to your questions as best as I’m able to, in the order presented. the third column would be the hidden cost to the humansphere,in the fourth column would be the balance, positive or negative, contribution or deficit to the human sphere.

      Yes there would be a serious problem quantifying it and that would have to be an ongoing process of refinement. Also, I think it needs to be a global, meta-governmental function, as does the process of taxation and first taxation i.e. punishment and reward.

      Actually, this idea would benefit budding businesses because they could have their contributions to the community rewarded even though they were operating at a loss from a two column perspective

      I hope this answers your questions

      Jeff (Dr. Jeff Eisen)

  9. Kyle says:

    Hi Jeff,

    My question is in regard to technological unemployment. In 1870, 70-80% of the US population was employed in agriculture, that figure has fallen below 3% today due to mechanization/automation. Manufacturing then picked up the slack of lost agriculture jobs, which is being phased out by automation today and has been shifted over into the service industry. Service industry jobs are now on the decline from the same phenomenon.

    It seems to me that technology is rendering the current socio-economic paradigm of capitalism obsolete. Technology is slowly but surely freeing us from the need to do mundane tasks for a living, allowing the human mind to be freed up for whatever the next evolutionary step would be — be it art, spirituality and consciousness elevation, etc.

    I think your desire to see the values of the average person change is the most important part of this message. We’re seeing a crisis of values in society today. However, it’s my opinion that capitalism would not sufficiently reflect the values of an enlightened collective.

    Interested to hear your thoughts, it’s been a real pleasure reading through your material this morning :)

  10. Pingback: El Andi (andresconrado) | Pearltrees

  11. jenny says:

    i think what is still lacking is an exact method , specific steps that people need to take to accomplish these wonderful goals . a step by step process for making it happen . thats whats missing .

  12. John says:

    Too many comments to type on phone! I honestly think this is thee best solution I have ever heard and its funny how adding another inflow outflow can change our whole planet. I support occupy but sadly their visions are short termly scattered and it will fizzle without remembrance. The global gov should consist of think tankers whom are ecologically positive. Also an ecologically positive corporate model should be created as an example.

  13. humaniterrian says:

    I really like the focus on consciousness and social responsibility for the ecosphere. I have concerns that putting such power over economy into the hands of government is a good idea. Currently the economic/financial sphere dominates and controls the political sphere. John Perkins coined the term “corporatocracy” to define our current system. Are you familiar with Rudolf Steiner, and his Threefold Commonwealth concept? The basic, simplified premise is that human life is comprised of three spheres- political, economic and cultural/spiritual- and that these should each be structured so not to impose unduly on any other of the other spheres. Infact, he cautioned that failure to recognize and adopt such a model (based on threefold nature of man, and of universe) would lead to human catastrophe- which we are well on our way to accomplishing.

    • JMoikos says:

      I share your support of focus on consciousness and your concern over concentrating power over economy and culture/spirit by any government. In much the same way that ‘enlightened self-interest’ connects us with whole system economics, I envision a return to a balanced ‘enlightened self-governance’ which is being modeled to a wider public by certain indigenous tribes today, and was the impetus for the early U.S. Unconsciousness is what permits sliding into the dominance of ‘corporatocracy’. Freeing ourselves from Toxic Myths of Scarcity (Lynne Twist), “There’s never enough.” “More is better.” and “That’s just the way it is.” moves us naturally toward whole system economics and makes enlightened self-government into a real possibility.

  14. Pingback: Energy, Money and Power | Jeff Eisen, Ph.D.

  15. greenhandz says:

    i am not trying to discredit “Dr.” Eisen’s bodies of work – or his own personal philosophies – I am merely submitting this can, in no way, be an Occupy “thing” for many reasons. “Dr.” Eisen is someone who can raise awareness and consciousness, but not a warrior for true change when it comes to this system. We already know what to do – those who are a part of it know as well. So, if exacting and enacting this change is what “Dr.” Eisen is about, participate in Occupy and become part of this rEVOLUTION. We’ll put you on the stacks – fo shizzle. ;)
    Smacks of Venus and “how can we keep the 99%ers happy while we still kill them off for the greater good of the 1%?” “The only hope is to change the system itself.” “changing the system” has always been an issue of Occupy and I think it’s been made pretty clear since Operation Occupy turned into actual Occupation of cities that we aren’t interested in changing the system. Until the author of this “manifesto” gets on the same page as Occupy, it might be a good idea to participate in Occupy – get some businesses to actually try some of the things you’re suggesting and see how it works. This is marked as a “gradual change” – we don’t have time for “gradual change.” There is no microwave setting, but we are fighting for our lives here. I especially don’t like the very negative statements about human nature. I entirely disbelieve this since my home has been a basic Occupy operation since my children were old enough to talk – we always have our door open, we leave our money out, we have homeless people in sleeping bags on the floor, people come and go at all times of the day and night, we don’t judge – ever, we love unconditionally – you know what happens when people aren’t boxed into a state of mere survival by a corrupt system? THEY STOP BEING MEAN! rEVOLUTION is not about slow change for corporations – the corporation does NOT have a “corporate mind” to change!!!! You got a good heart, Dr. Eisen and I’m sure a good brain, so work on your “ideas” and bring them to the stacks. Hard BLOCK.
    “The Revolution is LOVE; Occupy is LOVE IN YOUR FACE!”
    ~MamaZ ~ Storyteller Spider ~Phox ~8=D- ~daWOLF ~Scorpion ~51/50The Guild ~ ALL of the Guildys ~TheYouthAnonymous ~Green Handz
    comment read and voted upon by individual representatives

  16. humaniterrian says:

    Further to my previous concepts…I don’t believe that new socioeconomic order can be built with the same consciousness that has led to the present one.
    We must question everything. One aspect which has not been duly considered is the dangers and futility of centralized decision making and control (especially when such levers are so easily manipulated) in the economic sphere. Money creation must be free of centralized control and issuance- the world is just far too complex and ramifications are too great on humanity to allow an elite group of financiers and economists, even with the best of intentions, to try to manage the economic future of the nation and world.
    Co-operative mutual credit clearing systems, or even new digital Peer to Peer (universal IOU systems) money systems are being developed, and will allow us to break free of this dominating centralized control.

  17. Kathy C says:

    I like and appreciate the idea of there being more balance when it comes to business, and the Omnius Manifesto certainly is a great start. However, we need to watch it does not become an “ominous” manifesto. I have the following concerns:
    1. This still uses the flawed currency/money model we have in existence. When you consider most minds equate currency as being the corporate “lifeblood” of the system, this is one of the first things that need to change. The economies based on the current fossil fuel-based energies, etc., are what have fed into the problem/imbalance. There is a LOT of clean-up to do.
    2. Again, while I appreciate balance, the manifesto places natural and spiritual resources second or last compared to business/corporate profits, when it we need to really see it the other way around. I appreciate that it includes them at all (where we might not see that as much now), but it we need to look to Spirit/Consciousness/Nature/Energy first, and bring up the rear with “profit.”
    3. The concern over “self”ishness is valid, but can also be applied to “responsibility” and “change,” as well. Many people do not look at their interactions/consciousness when it comes to these areas; they have been conditioned and have difficulty determining the difference between Needs and Wants ["Consumer" model]; and feel change is bad or impossible. This is how things unnaturally stay the same, and feed into the negative.
    4. Less government sounds good/appealing to many; however, there are a number who rely on government provision. These are the most vulnerable/at-risk populations. We need to be doing MORE and have more compassion where these people are concerned, not less. Nature and People first. In fact, there are still ways people with disabilities can contribute to the “system”–even if it means providing work for trained staff people, etc. This needs to be fleshed out a bit more (and may even help with the comment from Kyle about wages/ unemployment).
    5. Consciousness::internal [profit] while Currency::external profit. It would be hard to rectify/ balance the two, if the process remains backward or negative in the way it flows. (See #2).
    6. Dependency of Self on the All – this ought to be the model, and can even be accounted for without currency by using ENERGY as the basis/flow instead. This would include accounting for the spiritual energy of the people (chi?) and natural (renewable) resources FIRST, followed by the cost of acquiring/manufacturing the hardware (contrived) materials second. Fossil fuel-driven companies are playing catch-up with energy; it is backwards, negative, deadly. If you have the people and materials to meet the need of a business model and make it work, then it could be a positive “go.”
    7. End of non-profits? I suppose–but again, it would take putting people, spirit/ideas, and natural resources in the front seat. Right now, non-profits serve a number of human services (refer to #4) that are not currently deemed as “profitable” enterprises, but are still needed.
    Comments: Kyle has good concerns about wages and unemployment using our current mindset, which is not addressed anywhere. What will we do with people unemployed or deemed “unemployable” with the skills they have? This will need to be balanced out.
    Humaniterrian’s observation re: Steiner’s Threefold Commonwealth does provide more for a balance between the three areas, not just the dichotomous either/or of profit or loss. That would be like expecting someone to be either alive or dead, in the corporate world. What about all those on “life support?” Those need to be considered.
    Great effort, Dr. Eisen! I hope some change can be made–we NEED it. :) ~ Namaste ~ Blessings!

    • dear Kathy
      your comments are well considered and appreciated, but I think if you read all of my papers on the subject and think deeply about them you will see that I have anticipated most of your objections. please do that and then, if you like, submit another comment.
      Dr. Jeffrey Eisen

  18. gregorylent says:

    amazing how little whole-systems thinking can be found … seeing earth as a single unit seems beyond economics at the moment

  19. Pingback: hyperperson | Pearltrees

  20. Pingback: emancipation | Pearltrees

No Comments yet, your thoughts are welcome »

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s