social chaos

Wondering about this idea, so a break from all this Sovereignty stuff...

I thought this was helpful:  reverso

And so I found this:

Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, however it has applications in several disciplines, including sociology and other social sciences. In the social sciences, chaos theory is the study of complex non-linear systems of social complexity.

But some how I found this " monologue " quite interesting on this subject:

Ari Melber: Casablanca

It's always worth taking a look a Casablanca,,,

Anyone it struck me that refuges actually are a relevant measure of
social chaos.


Anyway,,,, I am just going to add this video,,, maybe a more
artistic representation of this idea.

Bob Dylan: Over the Green Mountain


Finally I wish everyone happiness for 2018 ....

Should we leave 2017 in the rear view mirrors ???
Generally we have to carry the past around for a while  ...

Empirical or facts based dialogue

While this is not exactly on the subject of sovereignty
it is certainly an approach that will be helpful in
creating conversations or dialogues on this subject or
really any other complex subject.

This is an interview from Democracy Now with
Rush Holt and Jack Halberstam and contains some
relevant thoughts on the subject of using evidence
to support , well the focus was policy, but I believe
it is also important when addressing complex subjects
as I have been discussing here.  Certainly scientific
dialogue has very little meaning without the appropriate
use of facts and evidence.  Also is important, I
believe, to consider  what evidence involves.

The link follows:

CDC Bars Words

Sovereignty and ... more ... other stuff

So big topic goes on and on , but I just must mention
that my head in all down in Alabama right now.  Really
got my attention.  In particular, the now Senator Jones,
reflections on Martin Luther King, Jr. remarks on the
arc of morality which is certainly an interesting topic
and beyond that as I have noted, directly connected to how
we all, from a practical point of view  must deal with and
interact with sovereignty.

That arc it is noted points toward justice and so we might
think of this moral arc almost like a moral compass,
because it gives the arc some kind of direction.  I think
these ideas must be related to each other.

So briefly, we must conclude that the issue of sovereignty is
also connected with this notion of justice, as well as
this arc of morality, ala. Martin Luther King, Jr., actually
referred to as the moral arc of the universe.

Soveriegnty and other issues

Continuing on with this topic, I find it difficult to ignore
or avoid the issue of ruler ship, or governance, or however
that concept could be framed in the context of sovereignty.

When you consider this topic you always run up against
the notion of something like government when you
consider this notion of statehood, or nation hood,
which will always, some how,  connect itself with
some notion of sovereignty.  But clearly, if you examine
this notion of government, you  can not fail to observe that
this issue has been dealt with over time and in different
geographic regions, differently, and this is of course where
the notion of history or tradition connects so neatly into
this puzzle.  ( maybe not quite that neatly )

And it's pretty hard not to be puzzled really, because of
the vast difference in how these notions and just the
expression of these ideas varies over both time and space.

So just a brief list of some different ideas: we have
constitutional democracy, constitutional non-democracy,
which would probably include constitutional monarchy,
and then you have a spectrum of autocracy, and say
plutocracy, and so on, so the variety of 'ocracy' - which
even includes anarchy, is literally " crazy ".

 So you end up with this two sided coin which includes
the " governed " and the " government " .... although some
think it is actually unnecessary to include the later.  But
clearly you must have some kind of process in place if
for no other reason than someone has to add glue to
stamps, so that stamp collectors will have something to do.

Interesting to imagine that all this effort at culture and
civilization might be just so some stamp collectors
can remain occupied.

Now, by my observations and the big focus of a lot
of this blog,  in the U.S., we have a government but
we also have a " political process ",  which very clearly
seems to be different, and this includes the need to
eliminate the " political process " from within the government
although at the same time the " political process " is
clearly integrated into the government in various ways.

You should be able to see the difficulty already without
further examination in that state of affairs, which is,
you want to eliminate from government something
that is deeply woven into aspects of the government.
So this can not help but lead to a great deal of head
scratching which is made more difficult when this whole
idea of having two parties, which even if you are not associated
with them, you still must be aware of them.   What that means is,
even if you have nothing in particular to do with either party you
have to understand it some how.  That in itself makes
it a form of tyranny,  but this notion of different parties
is made worse in that on a lot of levels it is both very
difficult to understand these party distinctions and beyond that
the boundaries between them changes " frequently ". One
common theme seems to be  the idea of conquering the moral high
ground, which of course nobody can really see that ( the moral high ground).
Maybe ( moral high ground at moral high ground dot com ? )

So what  constitutes this moral high ground is forever part of
the multiplying disputes and disagreements.   And although
this very, very strange kind of warfare seems to go on, yet
many desire to avoid the issue of morality altogether
believing in part that morality is a form of tyranny.

I will admit that if this system of two parties continues
it seems likely that genetics will become
involved, so it may even turn into a medical problem.
For example, if you have parents of different parties
it might make you unable to make significant life decisions.
Perhaps it will result in people being unable to marry
outside of their "proper" political group.

No matter , however,  how you cut or peal this onion,
you must at some point come to understand that
every one has a lot at stake in making the " process ",
what ever it is, better and not worse.  So beyond
thinking about this notion of what sovereignty is,
we also must consider at some depth this notion of
the process, and indeed how this process can be made
better, and this it seems is becoming an ever more
pressing and immediate issue.  Yet it seems like now
we have relegated this to creating " crisis " to sort
it out, like throwing all the cards into th air to determine
who " wins ".

So finally, I must just say that one reason why we want this
" process " to improve is that problems, of any kind, seem
to multiply if they are not being solved.  Ask anybody.
( 1-800-ANY-BODY ) ....

truth, justice and sovereignty

So this is following on from last post about sovereignty,
from which I left you spinning around and around on
the compasses of morals, attempting to convince you that
it was essential to this issue of sovereignty.

Of course as I have mentioned this subject is vast.  If
I had started out in my youth entirely focused on just
this, I think maybe I would have something vital to
contribute, but as it is, I wasn't.

Nevertheless, I do think it is essential to include
both truth or Truth, and justice or Justice, into this
discussion because,  without  these two
essential ingredients, the notion of sovereignty would
mean substantially less.  Also, its connection to our
personal lives would not be so much.

I just want to try to make this notion clear, that
although we often think of both truth and justice
as external notions, they are in fact, both virtues
and both therefore integrally connected to the
effective functioning of a meaningful moral compass.

What that means is that like any other virtue it
is necessary to develop and nurture it.  That is
we have to develop and nurture our ability both
to understand truth as well as to understand
our relationship with it and how to effectively deal with
it.  In many ways you might call this a critical role
in any kind of real relationship we can  maintain
to the idea of science.

Imagining the moral compass visually, you might
think of it as some kind of gyroscope perhaps.
Directly related to it is both truth and justice as
sort of pivotal components of the structure.

Beyond that, justice as a virtue is a clear link to
our own self discovery and development. 

Imagining a moral compass as some kind of visual
is an interesting and entertaining idea, but it seems
clear it is of fundamental importance in guiding
us in the actions we apply to our real life situations.

More Thoughts on Soverienty

Now, I think this is an important subject, and one that
requires a good deal of thought.  For example it
should be clear that as far as exercising loyalty, these
spaces occur in various ways and various levels and
so you can immediately see that there is a great deal
of complexity involved.   A common issue exists
between say a " nationality " , meaning allegiance to
a particular national region and ideology that might then
be confused with a more physical kind of reality. 
That might mean that what you view as an
allegiance to a nation in geography might be
more of an allegiance or connection to some ideology,
for example democracy or something like that.  
So you can see it's  not really that easy to sort out, if you
spend time to consider it.  You might view it as
highly multi-dimensional.

If you consider further all the other levels to which we
might have allegiance, well then it becomes really
, hard , to rap your head around.

Now this is the perfect application of a moral compass.

Some might view the moral compass as a filter, which
distinguishes good and bad.  I view it as something
a little more immediate, as " what do I do next ".
So therefore, I suggest that it must be an instrument
that is always being tuned, improved or enhanced,
because, when you have to decide between two paths,
in the " heat of the moment ", you want to at least
try and get your best foot forward,  knowing even
that sometimes it's not going to be enough and so often we
recognize, and it it clearly important that we do
recognize, by self-reflection, how and why we can
or do fall short.

And everyone always is involved with this.

So then it should be clear that this moral compass
is a process or maybe multiple processes that are
continually being refined and finally that this is
most likely the only way we can properly navigate
these issues of loyalty and allegiances which are
clearly, such an important, structural part of social
and cultural fabric.

Backing into Sovereignty

Happy almost Thanksgiving ! (almost speaking from the
day ( ahead or behind ? ) )

This all sounds a bit like a wreck in the parking lot ....

 I guess I could begin with the issue of, is there a difference
between sovereignty and Sovereignty? You also might like
to consider where the 'reignty' comes from.  But we should
all be able to admit that it is not a physical object made up
of protons , and neutrons or quarks, so for example it's hard
to find a sovereignty shop were you can pick up a couple pounds,
for example.    So it's existential nature is a bit hard to
describe, but it is a good deal easier to think of it in terms
of - how we think about it -. 

And at a very personal level I think it has a lot to do with
the notion of loyalty,  which is quite often considered to
be a virtue.  So then it is possible to think about soveriegnty
as to whom we give, or recognize maybe you could call it a space
for this virtue to exist.

Now, such spaces might be thought of as neighborhoods, families,
communities, regions, and nations.  And so considering that,
you should be willing concede that all humanity is in fact a category
or ( space ) where loyalty should also arise.

We should also consider alliegience to certain " ideologies ",,,
now an ideology is quite an amorphous concept which probably
should not be confused with " musicology " or "numerology",
(although maybe in some ways ) , for example Democracy or
democracy, is an example of such a notion.  In those nations
which have a tradition of royalty, then some kind of ideolgy
would be at play, but I also see that that notion can be connected
to the symbols of the loyalty within a family , perhaps.  So we
do have our loyalties in these kind of spaces as well. 


Now whether sovereignty arises from God or from the individual,
the facts on the ground are connected to those loyalties that
we all work within, emphasis, recognize, and encourage.  But
at any rate the idea of connecting soveriegnty with a large pile
of cash somehow , I believe, is a limiting one.

On the trail in search of soverienty

I do not think that this issue can be dismissed lightly,
or fully addressed briefly.  Simply I feel it is a
subject on which everyone needs to consider or think about
 in a deep and serious way.  I say this mostly because I
believe that sovereignty begins with the individual and
therefore the issue of sovereignty is connected to knowledge
of self, which is always of serious importance.  And in addition
I feel that it ties back to previous post concerning economics
and behavior, as I suggested then and related to virtue.

Now others may view this issue differently, for example, the
perspective that sovereignty, say originates from God, aka
the Supreme Being.  Now that may be a legitimate perspective,
but it's very much like the issue of up and down, say
per general relativity.  Ultimately the change of coordinates
makes no difference, to what is going on at any particular point.

Another legitimate issue of course particularly as concerns
such events as the following:  cop23 , which suggests the
question, that if a country is sovereign , then what about the
earth?  Then if the earth is considered sovereign, then how does
that relate to that relationship between individual nations and
the sovereignty of the earth itself.

But to consider this from other perspectives I would suggest the
following as it concerns a non-theistic perspective - Buryats
Siberian / Tibetan Buddhists.  I have not drawn any hard
and fast conclusions based on this group, but it certainly
presents us with an interesting perspective.

But I will continue on this subject as time and my evolving
view , develops.



     

Economics and Behavior

I must regress from pursuing the issue of soverienty and begin to
address the issues again of economics and behaviors, as there is
clearly a direct connection to these concepts.  In a world where
one might conclude that a big pile of cash is what sovereignty
means, suggests that deeper insights into the ideas of economics
are important.


So for example, I have previously suggested that in modern times
the greatest treatise on economics in the modern world was the
Quran, from the tradition of Islam.  Now why do I say that?
If you notice what happened in the 200 year period
after the Quran and Mohammed you see the greatest
transformation in world culture, that you would have to go back
to antiquity to see the equal of.

A positive growth in human knowledge and capacity.  So I have
said and I generally do believe that we are living in a mostly Islamic
culture today. 

But anyone is of course free to disagree with that view point,
in the big picture what is important is to consider how, the
notion of economics and behavior are directly connected.

First of all, it is necessary to reflect on what is the most important
and most highly rewarded human activity.  It is simply to serve our
fellow man.  The whole  notion of customer is simply, that person
who is to be served by an enterprise or endeavor. 

Now the tricky part and a venture that also has " rewards " is the
effort to figure out what is the best way to do that? 

And this is important, and we need to consider that in order to achieve
that result , how to organize our efforts to maximize their  effect is
a serious endeavor and requires great energy of a very coherent type.
In order to achieve that kind of coherent energy requires what is
often refered to as virtue.  And now, this is a clear indication of the
importance of this behavior, and why the cultivation of virtue is so
important for the advancement of human culture.

Now if you can figure out how to make this into a liberal or a conservative
issue, well that's great, but I don't see that.

More or less on s(S)overienty and (p)Political disccourse

I never anticipated this post ...

So my mind is on Puerto Rico
and in particular the energy grid...

as some of this is contained at this
blog:  gridstuff
which also contains link to unicef site:

unicef - Puerto Rico

 I am not sure what the best site is

for donations,
however there is also this :

former presidents fundraise -for-puerto-rico-disaster-relief

Now I would like to say that this is a great opportunity to
reflect on how highly devisive rhetoric can impend
us from achieving successful objectives, and that it you
say --> former presidents fund raise, really fast about
20 times ( well ) ....

But more than that it does not allow us to really understand
how limitless our potential is when we work together and
discuss things in moderate tones with a focus on,,,,
courtesy, dignity and utilizing our power of reason....

In reality we can achieve extraordinary things.

More on, Soverienty

This could lead into more on, more on, and then some more on, and
maybe even more on,  the subject could be extensive ( lot's of more ons ).

Now before I start I want to mention 3 recent talks related to this
subject

1) Mr. G.W. Bush

2) Mr. Barack Obama

both former or Former (?) Presidents
what about ( former presidents ? )
 and both on 10/19/2017

3)  Mr John McCain 

who is current Senator wise, but also
perhaps former from other view points.

Now these talks are not strictly related to
sovereignty but certainly there are aspects of
these talks which connect with the idea but
also they are examples of political discourse
as referred to in previous post,  also distinct
in that at least from my point of view, the
issue is not primarily focused on

-------  how do we spend money ----------

but primarily focused on

-----------    who we are ------------

which I assert is closely linked to this idea of
sovereignty ...

Now, my suggestion that sovereignty is more closely
related to historical or perhaps " legal " issues
has some relevancy, and of course  would be true
for 2 reasons, one is justice is of key concern and
two,,,, everything changes

in fact   :  

Bob Dylan The Times They Are A Changin' 1964 - YouTube

but on this issue of sovereignty I would also suggest that,
if you consider this country certainly one of the most
serious confrontations to sovereignty was the civil war in
the U.S. and an issue which confronts us today, because
issues as to the nature of U.S. sovereignty which should have
been resolved at that time, I believe where not, and
as a result,  certain systemic flows have evolved, those
flaws now seeming to be threatening to turn into
serious problems ....

Well, as stated previously I will need to address this more.


 

Political Discourse and Sovereignty

Well, sovereignty has recently pop_ed  up in political discourse.
Now, I'm not sure whether anyone or everyone has a very clear
notion of what sovereignty might mean and to put it simply, 
what sovereignty is, is a pretty complex issue, but I will simply
state that " sovereignty "  comes from the individual,,, because
where else could it arise?

But back to the issue of political discourse, in my opinion,
this has been mostly focused on ,,, we will discuss
a variety of issues which may be of concern, and whoever
holds the most popular position on this, is --> the  " group ",
that gets to spend the cash,,,, and the " big pile " of cash
becomes ,,, sovereignty.  Basically, in the U.S. it's about
a contest between the dueling big 2 positions, 
meaning liberal or conservation ,,,,,  which as a nation
we decide which of these groups is the best about talking
about this variety of issues.  Then we decide that anybody
who doesn't have 2 distinct groups arguing about how
to spend the cash, are mostly ----> bad! <---- (generally,
but not always) ,  but , whatever,  that makes us " good ! " ...
There is, however, a monkey wrench variable which relates
to " individual " popularity ,,, a highly obscure concept.

This is pretty stupid ,really, if you think about or, really,
it's pretty stupid even if you don't think about it.  Now,,
I'm not going to try and say how we should make these
kinds of decisions, but I will say that there must be
a better way to think about this and to really actually
do it, because right now I think the main justification
for it is, it's a kind of weird form of entertainment, that
no one enjoys, but no one can  escape, and we kind of
assume is free, but really costs a bundle.

Meanwhile, I will get back to the issue of sovereignty, some
more .... later .....

Democracy & Revolution

Well, this alternately is ==> how do we defend ourselves against ourselves?,
we are always our worst enemy or, how can we get on the same page?

                                           Box of Rain

Now, it's Labor Day, 2017, and we should recognize that there's been a lot
of labor going on, since 1814, since 1320, since 4500 B.C., when no
one even new what was going on, but that progress, knowing what is
going on, is still quite surprisingly difficult.  I mean how difficult is it?

For the last 5000 years there have been a great many difficulties, some
of them almost insurmountable, but some how we ( all of us ) of the
human species have kept on quite diligently surmounting them, and I
think really, that's a good thing.

But this must have something to do with democracy, a very old or
you might say, ancient notion.  Since the American and French revolutions
this notion has been tied somewhat to revolution, more especially if you are
American or French. When I started this blog I began discussing
democracy as a very illusive and almost unattainable concept.  I still
support the idea that democracy is something that we must always strive
to achieve, although when we talk of justice, we are always concerned
about something that you --- write down ----,,, put into print. So we especially
like having had something written down at some point which must always be
sometime in the past, by somebody.

But now, I think, democracy has to mean something beyond documents
and history, I feel, that for it to be realized in an always more meaningful
way, it needs to be achieved in a bit more internalized way,  in a way
that can be more clearly recognized in ourselves and  in each other.

You know?  So if I had to put a pulse on this ? revolution ?,,,, I guess
I would say that is the really big ==> revolution <==,  and the
reason why I see the notion of democracy as continuously illusive,
not illusionary, simply hard to find or achieve.

I remain optimistic, but please don't ask me why, exactly.


                             chimes of freedom

Non-polarizing transformations

Combining the last two post there is obviously a strong indication of
a method to proceed.  In other words we have to encourage transforming
action which can have non-polarizing effects, and in fact bring
about a reduction of those polarizing effects, which now seem
so ascendant. .

So we have to think about ways in which this can occur.

#1 The change can only occur in in the most immediate ways, as
in thinking and actions, which would include the mental ability to
understand that positive change which benefits everyone can
occur, in fact, because it does occur.    This is obviously an
educational process.

#2 So, following from #1, any effective change would have to at least
begin locally and progress from the local level and expand out ward.

#3 At some point this will be reflected in larger ways, more broadly in
larger institutions.

#4 This is a continuous ongoing process, iterative and other ways.

Is that possible?  Well, grass grows, but people cut it.

Transformations

So, following on from the previous post, the difference, perceptional
differences between the swing of the compass, I think that the phenomena
of transformation plays a key role, and that would mean mostly,
how this notion of transformation plays out and how it is perceived.

A simple notion in relation to transformations would be that
a transformation my proceed in two directions, and in many
ways this is a paradigm for the generally understood perception
of time.  But subtly different is the notion of progress and egress.

Now usually some where around here you need to jump into the
notion of extremes.  That is a method of creating a perspective.
By observing these extremes we may come to some reasonable
ideas that suggest how transformation should progress.

Whether that is a good idea or not I'm not sure, but I feel
pretty confident that it is a commonly used basis for a valid
determination of progress, that is, evaluating failures and
determining a better way forward.   And for sure that can
be a helpful process.

Now I will simply suggest that it can also be helpful to
have a focus on what we are progressing towards. But
to make these kinds of determinations " common " understanding
must be reached or ascertained.  That means it is necessary
to develop this common perspective which takes in many different
perspectives, in a common dialog.

So a common dialog must progress, over a wide spectrum of views.
This I feel is a method to secure common well being, and insure
common understanding.  This simply stands to reason with me,
but such things can be proven by careful argument.  I just hope
some one else comes up with a proof, because those things can
be a bit scary to fall on.  But beyond that,  for such a system of
transformation to develop, we must all agree on a need to
discover and a willingness to precede together.

And stuff, liberal and conservative

So, I like to do one conservative thing in the morning before
breakfast, at least one or two liberal things perhaps, during
the day, and finally one last gasp of conservationism before
bed, except on the weekends where I try to reverse that.
Even though it works out to an even number of conservative
and liberal actions, one could argue that I might still be
a liberal,  but maybe one could also argue that I might be
on the conservative side.  I don't know.

Anyway, perhaps, there are people who are so pure
as to never even had one liberal thought or action
in their entire lives, or perhaps, there are those who
have never had one conservative thought.  Perhaps there are
neurologists who know about this and for example if
there are physiological differences between liberals
and conservatives.  I would like to know about it.
I do know that conservatives tend to favor D.C. comics,
which is quite fascinating really.  Maybe it's because
D.C. heroes are more tidy ? , while a marvel hero might
let it hang out a bit more?  I do not know.

I do know this,  when I was about 9 years old I noticed that
everyone has ears, in fact they have two of them, and
this was a stunning revelation for me at the time, so
much so I spent several days observing people and
their ears.  It no longer has the same effect on me as it once
did.

Also, I am glad that I made that discovery when I did, as
that was just a bit before the Cuban missile crisis, and
if that had gone badly I might never have had the
opportunity to discover, that amazing uniformity in
people.  Well, we have a " new " missile crisis now, and
so I just recommend you start paying more attention to
peoples ears, while you still can.

Polarity

In this post: the good bad conundrum

I discuss one aspect of a polarized perceptive,
in terms of good and bad.  In reality this is
the tip of a fairly big iceberg in our brains.

So beginning with the compass, the issue of
polarity has become ingrained in human thought,
meaning that it has become very difficult for us
to comprehend reality if it is not framed in terms
of opposing forces in conflict.  So as mentioned
previously in this blog, the issue of sport is
an example.  It is very difficult for us to imagine
a sporting event which does not include a winner
and a loser.  And so we frame many aspects of
life based on the notion of winning and losing.

Likewise we perceive and comprehend nature
especially as it might relate to mechanical issues
in terms of polarities, and so many times we use the
notion of polarity or opposition of forces, or
placing forces in opposition to obtain mechanical
advantage.  And this notion expands to a paradigm
of polarity which then rises to the level of atomic
forces, in opposition.

And so we see it in our political life in U.S., as the
"adult/mature" perspective on how to deal with
society and social concerns, by placing forces in
opposition to discover a " winner " and as a result
a "loser"....  And this notion is again supported by
a religious point of view, that rigidly adheres to
powerful notions of good and evil and perhaps
rich and poor as well, which leads to ideas related
to organization and how things need structuring.

I am here to say we have to begin to back off from the
cliff, that this notion of polarity has created.  Seriously
back off.   And to support the alternative notion
which involves connections  in nature as well
as the individual and so we should assume in
social interactions as well. Why do I suggest this?
It is mostly because of the complexity we face in the
world today, as well as the challenges these complexities
create, and the necessity for us to develop better
solutions and concepts to find successful answers.

I am guessing that this notion needs to be expanded
upon further, and so will continue with that notion
of connection as  it applies to natural systems as well
as issues of social import, in later posts.

And so in conclusion, I just have to point out the
obvious,  preception is not a word nor is connectedness,
I guess.  More on, this later.

Okay, maybe, party together ...

I am suddenly amazed because together is one word.

So I just created a blog called partytogether2020,

So I figure, that I will add stuff to it about whether
this is at all a reasonable idea, and if any one is
going to go along with it.

So what I will use the remainder of what goes into this,
about the difference, real and imaginary, between " liberals "
and " conservatives ".

And so, Party Together 2020

And so and stuff.

First for security reasons I think democrats and republicans need
to party together and to make it real they need to party with other
established ( whatever that means ) .... parties, so a co-operative
process where every one is involved is used to keep track of
the money.

So what about the incumbent ?   The incumbent could run independent
or the incumbent could run with everyone else, but not be included in
the primaries. Then it comes down to how many national conventions
you want to have.

I was thinking about pushing this idea.  Not going to do that.

I just feel it's the right way to go in terms of security and in terms
of how the President of the U.S. should be elected.   And besides
that, it would probably be less expensive.

Period. And stuff.

And stuff, superstition, prejudice and greed

This should more correctly fall under demons and dogmas, but
for now I will stick this here.  These two " entities " superstition and greed
are often connected to and somehow intertwined with greed.  When
these three forces combine together you have the most completely
corrosive effects on culture as well as society and civilization.
In short when these three forces are ascendant  the abilities for
human beings to behave and co-operate together is almost
entirely eliminated.

Therefore, I have to ask why we wish to continue this confrontational
political system at such a level that will encourage these kinds of
forces (greed, prejudice, and superstition ) by mentally propping up
some fanciful concept of a social perspective (way of looking at things)
 that is almost impossible to accurately define or comprehend?  

So I don't necessarily feel these quasi-institutions need to be eliminated,
only I suggest that at  least some aspects need to be moderated or
at least re-directed into  more productive directions.

So you can have democrats and republicans and independents and
all different kinds of party but when it comes to presidents of
this country (U.S.) we need to seriously consider that we can
party together on that one.

Where is the money?

Following on from the last post, one of the best reasons to develop such
a system of elections is the issue of money.

Under this concept the money would arrive only to one organization
which would be a co-operative process between all parties
to keep track of the money and to dispense the money
to the candidates.  This model would create a basis in a practical
sense for co-operation between all parties to try to get the best
person for what is an increasingly difficult but non-the-less important
role.  A role which will be more effective if there is broad support
for the individual elected.

The basic idea is that each individual will receive money based on
contributions to the organization to elect the president for the
individual candidate, but the nature of the organization would
create a higher degree of integrity based on the co-operation
between all parties, and more sense of trust, as well, about those
actions that are going on within the organization.

So this would be a great example for co-operation outside of the
formal government which should translate as an example to
the formal government itself.

Now obviously if a democrat, or republican is elected you would
expect some republican or democrat behaviors, but really idea is
to " tone " that aspect of the office way down. Rabbits .....

And speaking about spoilers

So in this Democracy Now, interview,

Billion Dollar Mistake

there is a discussion and analysis of the 2016 election, as how
all that stuff shook out, to where we are now, and one element of
that is the " minor " party effects. This spoiler issue involved
a splitting of progressive efforts.

What I am suggesting is that this issue will be reduced by
having a non-partisan presidential election.   As I said before,
we are really not loosing that much, by implementing such a
system.  The question is if you would go to having two opponents
when there is already an incumbent. You could go both ways with that,
but you have to have  ,kind of, two major election in a row, so
advantages, but some disadvantages as well and that could just be
over kill.  But I'm sure there might be a clever way to a least
try and get the best of both worlds.  Perhaps the answer is to
always have 3 major candidates for all presidential elections.

I think this bipartisan election system would give minor party
candidates greater exposure as well as reducing or eliminating
a spoiler type effect in the final election process.

briefly, bi-partisan presidency search, party together

So a brief google search I fount this article:


partying together  2007

And stuff, more bipartisan president

Now I just discover the following correlation between liberal
and conservatives via which comic books they like:

liberal-or-conservative vs marval/dc-readers--1512365

In a perfect world, of course, nothing from the D.C. universe
is capable of penetrating the Marvel universe, most likely
on account of the large amount of dark matter which separates
them, or maybe it has something to do with the speed of
light in a vacuum?

But that is only a digression, I just want to make a few comments
about a bipartisan election of a president, which does make sense
to me.

First there needs to be local organizations with a desire to improve the
election of presidents, that I think would also be locally focused on
getting more people connected to the voting process.  These
organizations would have representatives from all local parties.

The area in terms of local would need to be large enough to
to have multi-parties.

Now if you look at the previous election of 2016,   essentially all
the candidates of all the parties,  mainly republican, democrat,
libertarian and green would all run together and be voted on
at each primary election, so that at the end you would have the
two most popular candidates running opposed to each other.

In this way, by the end, even though there would be a winner
take all final election,  by the end, the issue of republican
versus democrat would be greatly diminished and there would
also be necessarily a co-operation among parties at the
local level in-order to develop and support this kind of
a multi-party presidency.   But most important as the organization
which most directly supports the president, it would also
have a responsibility to ensure the efforts and tone of the president
would in fact in action be one of encouraging bi-partisan efforts
in the legislature.  So the president would make efforts to
bring the parties together from the top while the electorate
is working to bring the parties together at the bottom.

Now some would suggest that the gives the president in fact too
much power.....  Well, perhaps that is true but would also I
suggest limit the amount of mischievous or counter-productive
behaviors in which a president would effectively be able to
engage in.

Finally, I think this would also create a more secure process
for the selection of a U.S. president and even should logically
be less expensive.  I think it would also create a more positive
atmosphere in politics generally, and finally I believe, create
a social culture better able to serve  effective problem solving.

And Stuff, Something is going on here ....

So I just note this Washington Post Article,,,,

John McCain

What do I think?   Well, I think that this is a assertive message about
what needs to be done to move a more sensible and realistic
approach to helpful problem solving forward, at least in this country so
we can begin to succeed  with solutions to those over whelming
problems, issues and concerns which seems to overwhelm us today.

How should it be that these conversations become exclusive?  That
only certain people can be engaged,  when the way forward is
clearly to expand the conversations, dialogues, consultations  and
efforts to discover, the proper ways to proceed.  Because the road
forward must be a road of discovery.  These solution are unknown
to us, now, and solutions are usually not obvious or simple, but
the more insights we can entertain, will hopefully bring us closer
to genuine clarity and the brilliance of a future in which the best
interests of EVERYONE, is considered, and not that of some
particular group or unique segment alone.

And so if Mr. McCain was not a genuine American hero,
previously, I would suggest, he  may be one now.

But there is no question in my mind, that the people of this
country have a great deal to consider and many actions
to yet to undertake.

Meanwhile, I can only wish Mr. McCain my best wishes
 on his own personal journey of discovery.  The sun always
arises in the morning ....

And Stuff,The Nature of Democracy

And stuff ,,, is an expression I have come to use very extensively,
and loosely it would translate to: I'm not sure where this starts
and how it ends,  so who knows.

So to begin with, when I began this, I kind of suggested that
democracy is somewhat inaccessible, but really it is more than
just the idea being difficult.  There is a reference in this blog
to the idea, which is the relationship between the folks living
in the country, and those who live in the city, where this idea
of democracy or at least the word developed.

So, for example, you can use this term to belong to a category of
things, like political systems.  But that only takes us from a bit
vague, to a lot more vague.  So for now I will just include this
notion as a thing.  Democracy is a thing, okay.

Now,  the nature of things in general, is a thing, when actually observed
or considered would really be best described as a process really,
because the nature of things, common to all things, is they are mostly
or in fact all changing.  Even something like a proton is changing and
so it can be applied to all kinds of things.

So in the U.S., we are all of us the guardians of the process, and our
main concern must be what in what direction is the process
proceeding.  Is it evolving toward something better that it is
right now or is it devolving into something less.  How can we
accurately assess or determine that?

Well, I think it needs to be evaluated at the level of values or
attributes to which we can ascribe to it and so we ask are
these values reflected in the process being supported and
enhanced by the process.   You can see this is not an easy
thing to evaluated because first you need a list of these
values.   I can throw out one that is quite important for
everyone and that would be justice.  Is justice the value
being supported and enhanced by the process we are
encouraging and participating in?  There are certainly
others, but I am just throwing this out as something
we need to consider individually, but most probably
best to be considered collectively and cooperatively
as well.

There is certainly more to this kind of evaluation,
which includes, what are those institutions which
are responsible for this process we call democracy?

How do we break out those institutions?  For example, some
might be media, science, religion, medicine, business, education.
And finally now, who is really in charge here? I would say
it would be the individual, but beyond that the individual
is supported and re-informed and re-enforced by those
around him.  What is really important is that we come to
a place where  our engagement with the process and the
nature of our involvement becomes more important
really than what we somehow attempt to add it all up
to be.  In other words, what we all are doing and how
we are doing it becomes the arena of the highest
concern and the subject closest to our attentions.

So, I just need to add, that if we are not all somehow
connected to these processes in a genuine way, then
the conclusion would be, it is not really democracy
that is at the core.

More On, problem solving

So this is a youtube video of Dwight Eisenhower after JFK assassination:

Eisenhower Speaks About Murder of JFK (1963)

I was interested about his recommendation that the nation stand behind

the government ---- >>>> ( be united )

So he was facing the situation, like " we have a problem ",,, and how

do we respond,,,, we come together, we are united ... this is the source

of our strength in a difficult time.

My point is that in the arena of problem solving, having diverse

perspectives pays off.  Very rarely does a " first solutions " take,

because they are often issued as expediency, a stop gap measure,

only gradually do you reach the point of a more permanent and

complete solution.

So I suggest as I have throughout this blog that attempts to

reach solutions which involve very diverse opinions is a genuinely

good thing, and we should not limit ourselves to say a liberal

or conservative view point, nor should we presuppose one

perspective to be superior to another, because, we are facing

a situation in the moment, in the present, which might require

one or the other perspective and sometimes both.

But most important the diverse perspectives allow for the 

testing of potential solutions before the phase of implementation.

That testing would perhaps be only in the form of an idea, yet

the benefits of that idea may lead to a strategy to prevent

difficulties arising in the future.

Also,,,, it should be quite clear to most people that an analysis

is not the same as a solution.  An analysis speaks to the problem

of course, but may not and probably should not imply the solution.

 And it's not easy.  And it does require efforts.  And it is a difficult

and time consuming task, and in fact the preparation for that task,

in itself is difficult and requires varieties of skills which includes

clarity of thought and judgement and should involve the

best evidences and information available to assist in that process.

Sport, Politics, Big Numbers, Ruling and Service

As usual I don't know what other stuff might be but I'll just
throw it in there in case it comes up.

So first big numbers.  Now I'll just throw a few out there,
but of course billion is big, million is big, and 5 can be big.
You know sometimes you can feel bowled over by 1.

Now 7 or 8 billion is of course a big number, and it is hard
to imagine, but there are 7 billion people on earth and that
is hard to take in.  It is very hard to imagine what all those
people are doing, and it's even harder really to imagine
them all doing it at the same time, nevertheless that is the
way it is.   Of course you might wish to look at it anyway
you want but, that is what is going on, on our curious little
globe.

So, you will see that sport is very popular throughout the
world, physical education, and playing with one ball or
puck and when you play the game it's all about the one
ball, which makes sense and this very sensible idea of a
game, throwing and hitting the one ball, or grabbing and
running with that ball, or however it goes.  The one ball,
and the one guy with that one ball somehow will achieve
the victory.

Some how this idea of sport has been maintained and
encouraged greatly in our political thinking and life and
the sense of one ball, and one person who has that ball
achieving the victory.

The idea that we can achieve some victory together may
be a bit hard for us to imagine or visualize how somehow
that the game can be played in some kind of co-operative
or collective way, and that the victory might be somehow
a collective victory is hard to imagine.

It seems to me that this collective nature of our environment
is really important to consider and how co-operation can
be achieved and how success can be achieved collectively
is quite important to accomplish some of the very difficult
problems and issues that we face now.  It comes down to
this simple idea.  Can a group achieve a success that the
individual might find extremely hard or impossible to
achieve, and how the group can collectively deal with that
success.

Now there is an interesting notion to be considered here,
which is the notion about ruling or service.  The idea
is that if you have a lot of people these people have to
be managed or controlled.   Now I think the more important
idea is that people need education first.  And if everyone
can see clearly  possess the skills necessary to achieve
good collective results, then controlling becomes less of
an issue.  Key to this all is the idea of service which becomes
very important to this whole conversation and concept and
the role this plays in our interactions and behaviors.  And
it is not a static but evolving notion.  As we experience this
the horizon expands.

Simply this requires some effort to consider, but it seems
this issue is at the heart of the concepts that have
repeated themselves throughout this blog.

And Now, a word from our sponsor , Power

We have 30 seconds from our sponsor .....


So, we look around and what is this power/ ?

Well, we can see,

Wind Power,
Water Power,
Power of Light or Sun,
Power of Earth,

as well as

Physical Power
Emotion Power
Power, Light of Truth
Power of the Individual
Collective Power of People
Power of Unity,
Power of Mind ...

And many others ...

This might not relate quite so well to the rest of the blog,
but I wish to point out or express in my opinion,
that this power of mind is quite special, and worthy
to consider and worthy to consider what it might mean.

And consider this how it may be possible, and I believe
is possible for us to focus and concentrate this power,
in connection with this other power we can call,
Power of Unity,,,,

Now back to our regular broadcast ....

Happy Bastille Day

So I need to say a few things about Bastille Day, and for an Italian,
well, as you know the Italians  did not do so well...

Anyway, what Bastille day means to me, is, there is a mountain, and
the mountain is steep and difficult to climb, but you climb it anyway
not just because you can, but you really, really want to and almost
you really, really need to.

And that is what Bastille day means to me.  You know there is a
great challenge but you accept that challenge, because the result
is an achievement, and really,,,,,  how many of us, now wish to
achieve something?    And we know we should and we know we
must, but you know if we try to achieve this success together,
well then, how much better is that.

Now we must agree, this is what the people in France in the 1790's
were confronting, from what appeared to them to be necessity,
not desire.  This is what philosopher's refer to as Enlightenment,
but that is of course another story for another time.

So right now we must confront tyranny, in various forms, but I think
one great tyranny  we all face equally is the tyranny from within,
that makes us believe that we can not be more kind, more generous,
more understanding, a better friend, and ultimately wiser,,, and believing
that is a great oppression.  But certainly we can all at least imagine
freeing ourselves from that tyrant.  I believe that is true.

So we look at the mountain and we desire to reach that summit.

We should all aspire to reach that, and much better if we aspire
to reach that together.  We can imagine the benefits we might gain
and anyway how hard can that really be?

Happy Bastille Day Eve

Yes, tomorrow is Bastille Day maybe we should not forget.

Now following along with the idea of a bi-partisan presidential
election process, I ran into this link:

Unity08

It is interesting that thoughts and efforts in this direction have

already taken place,,

Now we have to talk about success and failure, but it seems

like a successful effort along these lines would begin

locally....

Anyway,,,, 

You can't have it all

Now going back to the tyranny of a two party system you have to(two) look
at the high level of turning our world into a binary reality of
one way or another.  We can either be wealthy or we can be poor.
It is not possible to be wealthy and poor at the same time ( is / are )
and example of the kinds of problems that are going on in our world.
While at the same time it's going on in me as I write this.

I can name more of course, but there is also a general thought about
co-operation, what that means for us to co-operate together.

That is why we have to reconfigure our process of consultative
behavior, simply the way we come together to discuss our
common issues.  That means the process has to be encouraged
at the top, and that means we have to demand that behavior
at the bottom.

So there is this big distinction between the sense of " individuality ",
the the collective sense but I suggest that both a strong sense
of identity is possible at the same time you can have a strong
sense of community, common connection, common cause,
and common purpose.


So I'll just leave you with a stark reminder about the real world.
Light is both a wave and a particle.  Just is.

What are you going to believe?

For a long time now, I have had the believe that the U.S. performed a
role as servant to the rest of the world.  I believe I learned this in school,
at home, in general, and also probably from T.V. and radio.

Maybe, I got it all wrong, maybe I just was always confused, but it's what
I thought, and at the heart of it I still think it could be or should be the
correct view of the ways things could, should, or might be.

If that is true, the the person that leads the U.S.,,,, if we call the President
the leader, really needs to be extra-ordinary,  maybe not so much in
himself but in the resources available to him, in the form of those human
resources which can support him in that mission.

Of course, as I said, maybe I have it all wrong, but if I am right,
then some of the ideas I have suggested should be considered, I
think ????

follow up on last post, what does that look like

Okay,,,,

at a local level the bipartisan caucus would meet a lest every 4 years
just like any party, and would sends delegates for suggestions recommendations
to state caucus and then to a regional caucus.  Regional delegates would be
selected for national caucus , and from that would be selected the national
list of presidential candidates, which would then run in primaries in each
state and the primaries end with two conventions and those would be the
two ( or I guess it could just as well be 3, but 2 or 3 conventions ) ....


Then the candidate from the two conventions would run in the national
election.   One would be selected.... Now if you were really crazy, you
could add the electoral college, but not sure why, since at this point we
most likely have a very tedious and boring political system,  but I'm
guessing we could still have balloons and buttons, which perhaps,
is what it's all about in the first place.

So I think it would be worth while, and you know it would be about
integrity in our national politics. Integrity, security, all that stuff. It
the process of building such a system you would probably want it
to be a hack free as possible, which means, most likely, hand counted
ballots,,,, who I know counting ballots by hand ,,,, hard job,,,,,
Not sure at all about this details, but certainly if some one is smart
enough to hack it, we all should be smart enough to know how to
avoid the problem......

Now of course there is one great problem, dems have blue, pubs
have red,,,,, what color would bi-partisan be ???????????
Orange ???,,,, pineapple,,, is pineapple a color ????

Some Proposal, or maybe just an idea

Now let us imagine a non-partisan president, elected through a non-partisan caucus,
to which people could belong and they could be either democrat or republican or anything
else.  In addition people who run for office could also run in this party, but it's
primary job would be to elect the president.  So imagine a democratic senator, who
wished to be president would sign up to become president with the non-partisan caucus.
Likewise a republican governor who wanted to be president would likewise sign-up/
register or really it could be anybody or someone, just registered with the non-partisan
caucus. we could call it the npc, cpn, pnc, or something else.



Now,,,,,,   one of the chief jobs of the president would then be to " encourage ",,,,
ideally in a positive manner, a general non-partisan approach to problem
solving in the congress.  He would have to be something like a coach.

Also,  considering the level of tech we have these days, such a system
could be analysed to determine it's performance as it might be compared
to our current system of election.

Two party system

So I just found this wikipedia article:

Two-party_system


And several interesting quotes from that:

Herein lies the central tension of the two–party doctrine. It identifies popular sovereignty with choice, and then limits choice to one party or the other. If there is any truth to Schattschneider's analogy between elections and markets, America's faith in the two–party system begs the following question: Why do voters accept as the ultimate in political freedom a binary option they would surely protest as consumers? ... This is the tyranny of the two–party system, the construct that persuades United States citizens to accept two–party contests as a condition of electoral democracy.

— Lisa Jane Disch, 2002^[36]

and

 Political analyst A. G. Roderick, writing in his book Two Tyrants, argued that the two American parties, the Republicans and Democrats, are highly unpopular in 2015, and are not part of the political framework of state governments, and do not represent 47% of the electorate who identify themselves as "independents".^[40] He makes a case that the American president should be elected on a non-partisan basis,^[41][40][42

Thinking about thinking , some more

How many thoughts do we think in some period like 60 minutes ?

Neurologist should know something about this.

But I think anyone could guess a number like 1 or 10 or
200.

Now it might also be clear to understand that the most common
thoughts are probably non-verbal and require generally a certain
kind of focus and concentration.  For example tying a shoe
is a very good example of probably mostly non-verbal thought
but considerable focus.

We also might have verbal thoughts, which would be connected
to things that we often have verbal communications with someone
else about, like " I think I will go to .... ",

But clearly billions and billions of thoughts are happening at
any given moment.

Now,,,, as we see then to achieve effective collective action
requires a process by which these thoughts should
become harmonized, and the point of that harmonization,
the process of making smooth and balanced,  we can
see reflected in the natures of actions you make as an
individual at any given time.

 From the previous post you can relate
the concept of transformation and thinking

This balancing and harmonizing of thoughts must clearly
come at a cost. So then, how much, are you willing to pay?

States and Transformations

Now this refers back to this post: interplanetaryhome 2016/11/ unique-states

So I am not talking about states like nations, in particulars, but the idea of
states references a lot of phenomena.  Almost everything can be connected
or related to the idea of states and state transformations.

In the above link, I marvel at the notions of human states, individual human
being transforming in motion, and the image of that.  And from this prospective,
The Undivided Universe you see what a fantastic image it really is. So many
states and so many transformation it overwhelms the mind.

At the beginning of this blog I kind of imaged that by periodically changing the
somewhat imaginary states of conservative to liberal on a local level,
our political process could in some ways be resuscitated.  I'm not really
convinced it would work out all that well, but when you imagine
on a planetary level, the state changes happening all in time, in human
beings and also in those factors which affect the human condition,
just think how arbitrary those notions really appear.  It perhaps can
be amusing to consider ourselves attached to such limited notions,
but really, just think of all the states and all the transformations.

So I was going to get back to that notion of thinking which is
very closely related to the notion mentioned above and in
particular with that notion of transformation.  I will endeavor to
get back to that notion, soon.

Caregivers and other issues.

So care giving, is clearly related to health care, but also it connects
closely to the Buddhist notion of compassion. Here follows some details
from google search about compassion:

 Below, find eight signs you're a truly compassionate person. 

•  You find commonalities with other people. 
• You don't put emphasis on money. 
• You act on your empathy. ... 
• You're kind to yourself.
•  You teach others. ... 
• You're mindful. 
• You have high emotional intelligence. ... 
• You express gratitude. 

 I am not sure but it does seem that this is pretty good advice in general, for the normal behavior we should have, toward each other. Clearly if we have a lot of this behavior going on in society,,, many issues could be resolved , and of course many of these issues do or might connect with suffering in ourselves, and the suffering others. Now, I do suspect this is quite a natural way for people to behave, and we should be capable of encouraging each other in these things......

But now I have to point back to here:

trust-honesty-generosity-and-safety

as well as previous post on absolutes, because,
I don't know that your can ever achieve absolute
mastery of the above, in fact I think it is
a continuum an continuous project to progress
on these issues, and so,,,

the last post about trust, etc connects to all
these because of the term safety, which can
also be interpreted as justice.  So I think
that most clearly it should be thought of
as the fabric of society being,

trust, honesty, generosity, and justice ,,,,

kind of the same thing.

A little bit about absolutes

Now, some might accept a notion of, for example, the existence of a True Conservative
 or a True Liberal, which indicates there is an absolute line on some spectrum which
can be labeled at one point.  This does allow for the construction of a kind
of moral compass which has the premise that the true path must be somewhere
in the middle.

I would simply argue that I really don't think that works, it's kind of like a broken
clock which is right at least 2 time every day,,,,

Now we should reflect a bit on the natural world in order to consider if
there are some kinds of absolutes, and I would suggest that this observation
would indicate that because of the almost incredible variety and complexity
in nature, you can observe exceptions to almost any rule, unless it
is sufficiently general, and you might say generous in it's description.
For example if I say all leaves are green,,, well,, do you see that problem.

Or even all leaves are distinct..., well not that much, really.

Therefore, I would suggest both serious caution and thoughtfulness
be used in the creation of any kind of structure that relies too
heavily on this notion of absolute. Another good idea is not to
build cities on fault lines, but guess what .. ??

turn and face the strange changes

Link to youtube:  David Bowie, Changes

You know, I was thinking about writing about how difficult these
kinds of changes that I have discussed must be, and I heard this
interview which is linked here:   Chokwe Lumumba   .......

actually talking about these kinds of things, well, what the heck ????

talking about actions .... say heh !!!

A massive cultural change about what we think and how
we think and ultimately how we act,, no,, I don't think
it can be easy, it is even hard to imagine, or envision,  but as I have
discussed it seems plain that change is necessary and change
will come,,, but can we turn and face the changes ????

So exactly, now, tell me,  how much will these changes cost ????

Well, the more appropriate question is how can we afford
not to?

And you should remember about capital, there are many types
of capital,,, moral, physical, intellectual, and even cultural,,
which we possess individually and collectively and this is
where we need to invest, in each other.

These changes take place at a very intimate and very real level
within each of us but finds expression in everything .....
I mean everything .....

Back to the Truth ( again )

It seems like you do have to re-invent the wheel from time to time,
and so referencing old post :  The Truth

You know there are references to Einstein's letter to the U.N., about
secrets and how these secret's are detrimental to culture, and
boy talk about lot's of spades in relation to what's going on
right now ....  Hey?

A deck full of spades .....


We seem to be having a rather difficult time facing the the truth,
which is effectively honesty,,, which I also failed to address
in what seems to be essentially a kind of warp and woof for reality,

Trust, Honesty, Generosity, and Safety

maybe you can think of it like a bit of a matrix ......

in previous post ....

So I am going to add a few links to other ideas on this

subject....

euroculturer two-party-system

washington post

Howard Dean - NY times

The Hill

Huffington Post

U.S News

Fiscal Times

and this goes on, and on, .....

kind of a rabbit hole really ....

so you know what to think ????
( or ?)
 do you think what you know ?????

Trust, Honesty, Generosity, and Safety

Well, where is trust and where does trust go?////

Is there a relationship between trust and generosity?

And finally what about safety?

Well, we can pull this apart many different ways, but
to begin with I will assert that this is the fabric of
both economy and social order.  If there is no trust there
is no economy.  

So the first question, where does trust go?  I mentioned this
before in relationship to justice on this blog  21 Oh Man.

In the case of justice the answer was ,,,, nowhere.  Justice
does not move, but we are capable of obscuring it.  And
likewise I hold that trust is also one of those things that
may become obscured, and so I believe this goes back
to generosity.  How we interact with each other and
what kinds of things we mutually expect.  

Which get's back to safety.  If there is little trust,
or the perception of little trust, meaning the fabric
of society is beginning to shred, people will become
increasingly fearful.  That will cause them to behave
in particular ways.  But fear has never been a good
way to deal with reality, to understand reality, or to
connect with reality in substantial ways.  And that
of course brings us right back to " economy ".

Breaking my train of thought ....

While this may be a diversion or maybe going a bit left,
while everyone is going right,,,,

I still find it some how connected but also " intriguing " ...

Everything seems to be falling off the intriguing ...

"The Ministry of Utmost Happiness."

by Arundhati Roy

More On, Greed

So this is a continuing followup on what began with this post :  Seriously

So, in the last post I discussed some of my concerns about collective action
and --->  what I claim to be the major show stopper for cultural advancement
and an evolving society, " the one and only ",,,  greed.  ( also addressed here
at Demons & Dogmas ).

The big questions is, can greed be overcome?  I think the answer is a
some what personal one and clearly involves the issues of generosity.
But we can obverse that we are constantly getting feedback on this
issue and it really connects to personal behavior and how we
perceive generosity, as well as other human virtues.   Just following
along with the previous post here,  this has a profound effect on
collective action and the effectiveness of collective action more so
than one might initially expect, without giving due consideration to
it.

So we really need to bring into focus the need for self examination
on matters of this type and this also ties directly back to the
initial post above relating to how we take up , and pursue collective
actions on all levels, that is of the individual, family, community, and
so forth, and also, how we perceive the relationships of these
variously connected groups.  ( yes, an identity is a group )

The topics are really important and are issues that need to be addressed
in the present, but clearly moving on if we are serious about a future for
anybody.  But honestly and sincerely, none of this is easy.

Paradoxically Speaking

The alternate title would be , God, Greed, and Collective action and
relies on the previous two posts.

To begin with I want to specifically discuss collective action, the actions
taken by more than one individual.  So consider 4 individuals that wish
to perform an action or activity together.  You will see that in order
to succeed they must discuss details of how this action will be performed.
If they have performed that task before, those discussion may be abbreviated,
however, that task of discussion will go on at some level, how who,
where, what and when.

Now, if one individual believes or suggests he might have an
alternative method, but the other 3 agree on something, then
depending on the relationship between the 4, there might be
a less than positive effect.  For example, if there is not a strong 
relationship between them, and particularly if the 3 start into
belittling or demeaning that number 4, then one reasonable
outcome is that number 4 will just go his own way, then leaving
more work for the other 3.  This situation I believe it is fair to
call " stupid ", or perhaps, " counter-productive ".

Now we should be able to observe that this is not so different
from what happens to an individual before he undertakes
some action.  You will observe such things as collection
of information and assessments of details surrounding that task
should be taken in advance.  Time is always a big factor, so how
long do we predict this task will take?  And so individual action
requires a key component we often refer to as thinking. And there
are many aphorisms referring to this process, such as, " look before
you leap ".  Again, I will simply assert, that thinking is intimately
connected to the effective undertaking of any task and the quality
of the resulting task is related to that thinking as much as
how " together " the individual is in performing it.

Shifting over to God, now, I will just mention a few things.  First,
I will assert that it is possible to construct a rational proof for
the existence of God, but I will not get into that.  I will simply
note that one of the strongest arguments suggesting that
God doesn't exist, is the absence of physical evidence.  I will
simply note this argument is stated often, but rarely or never
proved, and that would be because it can not be proved.  Even
if it is reasonable to say there is no physical evidence now,
which I would disagree with, then you simply have to
qualify that with - yet -  ---- at the very  least.  But because
physical reality is effectively infinite by itself, asserting
the absence of physical evidence in this situation can
not be realistically provable.  Rather the correct observation
would be --- you have not personally observed it or made
the proper inference or connection.

But now let's move on to greed, or Greed if you prefer.  Very
few people will have any difficulty affirming the existence
of greed, though hardly anybody has ever seen a " lump
of greed ", or any measure of it.   And that is really because
greed is not so much a thing in itself, but more the absence of
a thing.  Mainly, I will assert that greed is the absence of
generosity and generosity itself makes itself known both
physically and non-physically.

Finally, I will also assert without proof that this issue of greed
or lack of generosity is the defining issue of the present day.
And you must observe that based on the example I gave
above concerning the behavior of 4 individuals in relation
to a task, a lack of generosity, particularly generosity of
spirit must logically result in a disruption of the effectiveness
or success of collective action.
 

More On, previous stuff

Following up from last post, which may take several more posts, I must point out
that my suggestion will not work if guys go to work and after work figure it's
okay to just do and say what they want.  So that means the " representatives " need
keep that going as you might imagine.  And beyond that " leaders " and executives
should do whatever is in there power to encourage that kind of behavior as well.

And so, seriously, why would anyway want to behave that way?

Well, those they represent need to expect that from them and support
and encourage them to behave that way.  That is one key point.  And
those they represent should expect it, regardless of perspective or
point of view on specific issues.  And primarily I will assert, because
in that way we can all achieve more of those things we truly wish
to achieve.  And I am not talking simply about compromise I am
talking about better solutions, and solutions that will encompass more
problems.

So I will follow up with more thoughts and comments on previous
post .....

Seriously

Well, I think it's about time that I became a little more serious and
a little bit more sincere about this blog, which I have given up on
at least twice, because I sort of felt it was a rant going nowhere,
basically.  But I have written frequently that the approach to decision
making based on conflict and confrontation is inherently weak, but
in addressing the real solutions to this difficulty, I expressed how
solutions seemed mostly intractable, or at least very difficult.

So I will offer one relatively simple idea, which can be easily applied
immediately.  Those bodies which have been set up for collective
deliberation need to address their behavior.  When anyone enters
these bodies, these environments for addressing the collective concerns
of societies and states, they must drop this posture of confrontation
and attack.   In other words, what ever their perspectives, views,
or agendas may be, however praiseworthy they may appear, they
must drop that all, and allow for a collective process which is
freed from preconceived views or opinions.  In other words if they
are of one party or another which may have some kind of agenda,
they most drop all that at the door, and commit themselves to
being open, considerate, and responsive to their colleagues above
all else.  They must in no way assume or suggest that they are in
possession of the right course of action or even the right course
of deliberation.  In other words, each one must put the other one,
 above themselves.  ( I hope that sentence is clear enough). If they
are not capable of achieving such a state then their best course of action
is to remain attentive, so that they might develop those skills
required to achieve the ability to work, act, and behave
in that manner that assumes collectively they may achieve solutions
of better quality than they could achieve individually.   And beyond
 that, the entire electorate must be supportive in what ever way is
possible of that kind of behavior.


It requires a commitment, however, but I trust these efforts are
reasonable and achievable, everywhere.  This simple effort I believe
can have dramatic and significant effects beneficial for all of us.
I finally, I also trust that following this suggestion that
strange quality ( the light of truth ) , will expand and
illumine all of us.