michel on desire ness
michel bauwens on change of desire ness
via tweet [https://x.com/mbauwens/status/2103430741258272972?s=20]:
* To change our type of civilization, we need to change the object of our desire
(check the comments in the threads for more)
This is how consciousness change can happen:
@CarlosPerona13 made a short remark about this at @VotC2026 , and it struck me as very important:
“Rene Girard thought desire is triangular, the three vertices are:
1) an Object of desire (usually this is ultimately status),
rather.. *ultimately ultimate.. status is what keeps us perpetuating sea world
*aka: 2 missing pieces that every soul craves – maté basic needs law et al
findings (aka: the things i can’t unsee) from on the ground ness deep dive and why we need tech w/o judgment
nothing to date (ever since that day) has gotten to that root of problem
2) the *Subject who desires that object, and
*aka: all of us – hari present in society law – khan filling the gaps law
3) the *Model who possesses that object and whose enjoyment of it teaches the Subject that it’s desirable.
*aka: every heart/soul – almaas holes law – on each heart – itch-in-the-soul
*So really the Subject desires to become the Model. **This create rivalry. In order to avoid the Subject coming after him, the Model has to point him towards some Scapegoat (“the reason why you can’t have the Object of desire you see me benefitting from is because of that Scapegoat over there, get him!”). For Girard, cultures always end up celebrating the murder of a scapegoat, because it’s the means by which the culture stays together instead of exploding into rivalry.
*i don’t know.. i think rather.. we all crave those ultimately ultimate things (2 missing pieces).. that would restore/uncover our heart .. but once all legit free.. (almaas holes law.. imagine a turtle – et al).. we wouldn’t be spending our days ‘desire’ ing those ultimately ultimate things.. just dance ing.. to the rhythm of our heart/itch (listen – a simple message et al)
**to me this is our cope\ing mech in sea world (ie: khan filling the gaps law et al.. not what legit free people would do)
*Civilizational transition, I’d argue, can be understood as the emergence of new Models who derive status from new, often non-scarce, Objects – say the piety of a monk rather than the wealth of a chieftain. **These objects are thereby made desirable, and society reconfigures around their pursuit. The less scarce, the more accessible status is, the more ways to pursue states there are, or the more ambivalent people are about status (most people want to be like the monk, but they don’t want to actually be a monk, and so are happy for him to have more status than them because they wouldn’t really want his life, for example), the less rivalry.
*to me.. this is already whalespeak.. ie: civilization ness as a cancerous distraction
**aka: the whac-a-mole-ing ness of sea world.. of not-us ness.. of part\ial ness.. perpetuating survival triage
New models, new objects of desire, might also be one way to explain the Axial revolution, where we still want to be rich and violent, but the Model of holiness (Christ, for example) becomes a widespread ideal.”
to me.. explain ing history ness is a cancerous distraction.. ie: two books et al..
and via michel’s reply to his tweet [https://x.com/mbauwens/status/2103433073861808353?s=20]:
This kind of change has happened pretty regularly, particulary as a reaction to collapse and to commence civilizational reconstruction on new terms.
yeah.. ever since that day.. but none of it has been legit ‘change’.. all has been perpetuating the same song (aka: myth of tragedy and lord et al)
The key author on this is Pitirim Sorokin who has documented periodic changes in the polarization of desire in his four volume: *
Values and Social Dynamics, https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Social_and_Cultural_Dynamics
He then studies how traditional societies of the past systematically *trained people for **altruism, in:
again.. nothing legit diff/new.. ever since that day..
and *if want conditions for legit free people.. needs to be – no prep.. no train.. no strain..
**to me this is whalespeak.. brown belonging law et al.. we need us all to be legit the it is me ness.. if we want the dance to dance.. ‘looking at others’ creates lots of cancerous distractions: maté trump law; graeber violence in care law; et al
* The Ways and Power of Love, https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Ways_and_Power_of_Love
from power of love link:
Sorokin placed primacy on Love.: “An *increase in our knowledge of the grace of love has become the paramount need of humanity.” It is to the topic of stimulating and harnessing **Love as a transforming power that he devoted arguably his greatest and most mature work, The Ways and Power of Love. The book represents a summary and distillation of ***research conducted at his Harvard Research Center in Creative Altruism in the early 1950s.
*legit love is the paramount need of humanity.. but that’s about unconditionality ness.. ie; pearson unconditional law et al;
to me .. if we think we know ‘it’.. and/or if we keep trying to increase knowledge of ‘it’.. it’s not legit love/grace.. ie: paul know\love law; graeber can’t know law; intellectness as cancerous distraction ness; et al..
**if not legit unconditional.. not legit grace.. so can’t legit transform
***research ness as cancerous distraction
need 1st/most: means (nonjudgmental expo labeling) to undo hierarchical listening ..
.. so we can hear what’s already on each heart as global detox in order to org around legit needs
More context on Sorokin via https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Category:Civilizational_Analysis#Pitirim_Sorokin
______
_____
_____
______
______
_____
______
_____
