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 .....