Back to the Future Democracy

>> Yes, there must be something more to this.

I think, the the glimmer and glean, that I described at the beginning of
this blog is real.  And right now I think the people must become
serious in believing that glimmer is a real thing that is really attainable.

>> But to be honest is that glimmer really real ?

Well, I believe in this idea of sovereignty discussed previously which must
begin with the individual, but also as mentioned that sovereignty is based on
a moral and or ethical core which is the point of the whole idea.

If that core is real, that sovereignty is real and that glimmer becomes real.
That internal sovereignty when it reaches out to community and neighborhood,
and beyond is the basis of all sovereignty and makes democracy real, makes
that dream attainable.  

That is the key, of how to make that glimmer, that impossible dream, real.

 

Ouch Wow and Bang

And the very good news is ?

So is this systemic breakdown to be simply associated with the failure of the
two party system to adequately  address the present needs of citizens to
find representation in their government or is something more at work?

Answer:  I don't know ....

But as I mentioned in the previous post I am clearly convinced that
the issue and meaning of sovereignty are at the heart of this.  And
at the heart of sovereignty is a moral or ethical core.

Now what can I say for sure.... (?)

As a nation the U.S. has spent an enormous amount to project a
image to the world,  and guess what ... that is a total failure,
because we are not projecting a clear image but more of a
bi-polar behavior, which leads to no clear image at all.

What is to be done?  Right now ?

I wish I had a clear direct statement that would clarify all this to
a single thought, but I really feel that we are on a trajectory that
requires us to achieve some moral clarity which will allow us
to find a more valid and meaningful significance to this issue
of sovereignty.  It requires self reflection and a social agenda
which includes meaningful dialog,  the ability to listen, and
more completely a ability to transform, and find meaningful
solutions to those issue that now confront us all, individually,
in communities, and in the world in general.

And so I am agitated , as every one now should be agitated,
and so I think we all must together search for the keys and
remedies to relieve that agitation and attain a clearer
vision of reality.

I need to add some lines from early England found in sovereignty
reference at Wikipedia:

We desire most from men,

From men both lund and poor,
To have sovereignty without lies.
For where we have sovereignty, all is ours,
Though a knight be ever so fierce,
And ever win mastery.
It is our desire to have master
Over such a sir.

Such is our purpose.

— The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnell (c. 1450),

Disagreements

So this blog has mainly been focusing on the idea of a conservative / liberal
dichotomy especially in the U.S.  But I think this is almost a shadow of
a dichotomy which reaches back to the civil war in the U.S. about
sovereignty and what that is.

So we see this in particular today in regard to national sovereignty as regards
the existing global reality that presses in on us,  but certainly can not be
ignored.  Also in this regard you have issues really going back to the individual,
in terms of what are an individuals rights as compared to the rights of neighbors
and the community.

These issues I believe are to a great extent at the heart of what seems today
to be serious conflicts in perspective because based on the individuals view
on these ideas it is easy to justify various courses of action which may be
in conflict with the views of those who have different perspectives on these
type of issue which can often be viewed as issues of  appropriate " borders ",
and expanded borders, obviously an on going dialog, which would possess
so much more meaning if it takes place in an environment of respect,
honesty and sincerity in reaching better understandings.

Moral Compass

  So  recently tossed around  the idea of a moral compass app, to develop and
I'm thinking about the algorithms involved --- may need to talk to Mr. Knuth ,
on this topic.  But then I realized maybe I am already working on it.

But then I realized that, we have a defacto moral compass in the U.S. which is
actually the two party system I have been blogging about.  And is based
on  Euclidean system, of two parallel lines do not meet.  The surface is flat.

Now, I guess I must speak personally about the left and the right, and
anybody who knows me well would have to admit and I might have to
admit, leaning to the left, and even sometimes maybe lurching in that direction.
But in all honestly how can you have lived as long as I have without stumbling
to the right a bit?  But I know there are many who are diametrically opposed to
me, meaning they lean and lurch to the right etc.

So we have a lot of that, a lot of variations that brings us back to the two party
system:  the axiom is that morality is encompassed by these two poles.  And
so our sense of direction, of how to proceed toward the future, is based on
these poles and somewhere in the middle is the direction we need to head.

So you see the flaw?  The surface is not flat.  In has never been flat and
we only wish sometimes that it was flat.  In fact it may be hyperbolic
with steep slopes.  Nevertheless, however you describe the surface,
you have to come to the reality that morality can not be contained
between these two opposing poles.

Therefore, to me a system which is more closely attuned to actually
determining needs and then structuring solution to those " real "
needs would be better for determining social direction. Plus somehow
the rigidity of that bi-polar structure seems way too confining and also
as can be witnessed in recent times, easily distorted.