An excerpt from the introduction to the forthcoming book Remaking the Planet Through Conversation by Carl H. Flygt
In this book we want to suggest in a pragmatic and plausibility-seeking way that humanity is in a position to alter the fundamental nature of the planet it lives on in the direction of something cosmic, mystical and profoundly benign and pleasurable. We don’t want to speculate on atomic and molecular physics in this exposition. That will come later. Instead we want to point to humanity itself as an intrinsic law and force of nature and to suggest that this natural law and force probably contains enough power not only externally to alter cities, landscapes and climate in certain natural ways, but to alter the natural mechanisms that produce day-waking consciousness in biological organisms, together with their outward effects, and thereby to place the human spirit in a controlling and organizing position, albeit very refined, within the structure of the cosmos itself.
The initial move here will be to point to an enormous discrepancy in our science and our social practice, a discrepancy that defies both common sense and intellectual history: we have no science of conversation despite the fact that conversation, if anything is, is the fundamental unit of society, and the scientific improvement of society has always been of uppermost concern to philosophers, to statesmen and to broad-minded scientists. If we want to improve society in the way we have improved medicine and electronics we need to study conversation. And to study conversation, we need a theory of conversation.
But we have no such theory. Or do we?
Our position is that such a theory, although today scarcely accepted on a widespread basis, actually exists, that it is plausible, elegant and easy to understand and that if applied in three of four strategic ways by a very small number of well-organized people, that it can move into a position of acceptance, broad applicability and enormous influence. This book will try to show something of the plausibility of this position. To make this plausibility argument, or at least to make a start on it, we will consider the essential nature of mysticism.
We think natural, real-time, person-to-person conversation, if understood and ritually practiced in a way that befits the deepest, most desired and most essential aspect of human nature, which is pure love in all its guises, can reveal the leading edge of humanity as an angelic or divine form of terrestrial life. This life form, we think, is likely in the long run to have benign molecular and atomic effects on the organization of the planet itself.
This idea, which is extensive and complex, can be tested initially and introduced socially in ways that preserve its chances of general acceptance and minimize negative reaction. Historical methods, for example the study of religious traditions and their mysticism, and empirical methods that predict and measure physiological responses are two such avenues of possible introduction. Other methods include published philosophical and technical books and articles, education practice, media including film, television and theater, conversation-enhancing information technology, and hygienic practices around health and sexuality. All appear likely to contribute to a positive science of conversation and in consequence to a complete or at least to a well-rounded social science.