Right, Wrong, Reason, and Understanding

This is almost out of context.  At least
on a fringe, I hope, it might connect. 

The original title was - and so, because
I felt I had to note in some way, the severe
outbreak of difficulty in accessing right
and wrong occurring at this time. This is
happening quite a bit, in this country as well
as elsewhere. It's certainly not a new thing.
A cause of great difficulty throughout time
on all kinds of levels.

Historically when this type of difficulty
occurs, we ( in the very general sense of we )
tend to rely on passion, a kind of passion
that quite often results in violence.
I have to speculate that this type of
reaction is somehow easier than utilizing
reason and understanding. Of course reason and
understanding are two  distinct aspects
of human experience.  Both are difficult and
connected, and a great struggle to achieve
one and more struggle again for the other.

For me personally, I can relate to this because
reason and understanding can be difficult
for me on a regular basis. And so, I fall back
on something that seems to come more easily,
passion, sometimes frustration first.  I can say
this personally, and looking back on big picture
history can see this, for just about as far back
as we can look.

Is there a way out of this conundrum? Well, to
answer the question requires a good deal of
reasoning in a specific situation, then it requires
some understanding in order to achieve some success.

Sounds like a snake eating its tail (tail) a bit?

And so ....

Something

Something is a song written by George Harrison

(maybe 50 years ago), or as they say words and music,

however, I might say that he composed it, is preferable.

Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with that.

This is about how the heck have we human beings

survived all this time. How much time is clearly a matter

of current investigation. But we can at least ask the simple

question of how.

Not really that easy to say, but I think it is because

human beings care. Human beings care for other

human beings and that is how we have survived and

even sometimes flourished (more or less).

Obviously most people would prefer the flourishing

bit.

Demagoguery , etc.

So I was thinking about a board game,
called Demagoguery , as an add-on when I
publish this blog but I am afraid the research costs,
with the F.C.C., could be very high, because,
they would have to determine whether the board
game would increase or decrease the amount of
actual demagoguery in society, or ideally,  might
,in some way,  reduce it's perilous effects.

Diocletian - the times they are changing - say what...

This is mainly a digression, but after hearing some of the Democratic debates, I was

 thinking it might be nice to be able to vote for multiple presidents, which as you 

may more may not know was the situation during the reign of Diocletian, 

" senior " Roman Augustus, around 300 A.D.   Of course Diocletian was a 

Roman Emperor, but the idea of multiple chief executives is not unheard of.

This also made me think that maybe voting for No or None for president might

also be an option.  That would mean of course having no chief executive, which

also makes sense, in some ways, at least to me.  It would mean of course that

the U.S. government would need to be organized in such a way as to be able

to operate without a senior executive.

Well, in conclusion then, I think the times they are a changing,

and I would just like to think or hope they are changing for the better.

Big Aspirations, True Greatness

One thing that all Americans share is this aspiration that we can run
our government using a system based on a realistic attempt at consultation
and deliberations. Making America great is really all about that.

There are several issues .  Deliberations means you are deliberate.
Consultations mean the other point of view is as important or more
important in fact than your own . 


So we have a great aspiration.   To what extent has that aspiration
been achieved?  I will not attempt to answer that questions, but
it should be clear it is a terrific challenge.


More than that, my main point is that when we elect a chief executive,
he must be oriented in such a way as to make that aspiration more of
a reality.    That is our true greatness.
 

Progress - &- Improvement

It just make me think of getting an un-improvement loan.

Anyway, most people will go for one or the other or both.
Yet the main philosophical difference between liberal and
conservative is in the above distinction.  That notion
immediately makes you think about, why this distinction
between improvement and progress can create such a
high level of dissension , distress, disagreement and so forth.

Curious how things work out.

Observing this it seems pretty darn clear that if we choose
one " powerful " individual in our community then the highest
priority for him/her  needs to be resolving that un-believably
ridiculous conflict, and therefore should be elected in such a
way that his/her connection with one of these questionable
political distinctions we refer to as parties does not effectively
destroy our system of self governance.  Therefore, the
decision to engage in such a form of election must
also be made in a non-political way.

One other thing also seems evident  in that we need to
reassess significantly our notion of economics, in
that currently if we discuss this topic using some
particular words, it immediately causes out rage.
This seriously inhibits our ability to discuss these
important collective ideas as well as collective behaviors.

If a particular word connected to a particular concept
is of such collective concern then the whole structure
and notion needs to be clearly examined.


All that  seems impossible, but I think I do need to speak
to my bank about one very large  un-improvement loan,
as soon as possible.

Digression: Isomphorism

So apparently this is more beating around the bush for
no apparent reason, but this is an interesting idea which
not everyone is completely conversant, or perhaps
some small number.  Perhaps no one is completely
conversant with it.

Anyway mathematics contains a notion of equality.
The founding father's of the USA also had some
idea like that in mind.  Now as to the reality of
equality, well, we have a very large number of
examples of that, because ,,, everything is in fact
equal to itself.

But that brings up the notion of .. itself, because,
clearly, if you consider an individual, say mammal,
well, it's made up of a whole pile of atoms, some
of which are indistinguishable from another individual,
and so the whole notion of what makes an individual thing
can be confusing.

Well, isomorhism is a bit more sophisticated in that some
thing might be the same as some other thing but appear to be
different.  This is quite a notion, and certainly can give your
head a scratch.

Anyway, I believe that if you are not familiar with the
word, you have some familiarity with the idea, as it
also appears to us in regular life in various ways, so
although you may have not specifically thought about
it, or scratched your head over it, you probably
have some intuition about it.

Why, am I writing about this?  It's a digression, following
an interlude.  Any more questions?

Interlude

So this is where I stop briefly with justification, to reflect
on , this justification won't go on for ever, but only
for some time.

But in my opinion this so called " hyper " division,
in political view is clearly a grave danger to
any reasonable attempt at self-governance, and that
is why the president should have as one of his greatest
priorities to bring together differing view points.
I only can suggest that if one party defines itself by
how much they dislike the other party, that can not
be a good thing.  But actually, you know, there are
many problems.

If a president (he/she) is unable to do that, effectively, in
my opinion we would be better off without a chief executive.

At any rate, others might simply say the greatest
problem is really, climate change.  If the climate
was not changing so much, we might actually
be nicer to each other.  That is just a thought,
or /opinion.

And so brass tacks

I was a bit surprised, that it is hard to find brass tacks.
Getting down to them appears easier.  Nevertheless,
this is where we find ourselves.

For the the big brass tacks represent the disturbing
situation, at least to me, that every time we elect
a president, there is a good deal of effort, made
to in some way disturb or disrupt him, and of course
the president in what ever situation that might be
must spend a substantial time is a defensive posture.

Now, that seems like a lot of resources being put
into a situation where reason and things like that
would suggest that there need not be such investment,
because it really seems quit self defeating.

Therefore I continue with the position that one
of the most grave duties of the president be
to try to reduce the level of this contention.
And so, I think that by electing a group of
people that represent all american s,
to more or less insure a fair election,  that at
the end of the process the person who becomes
president will be in a better position to bring
the differing factions together which should be
the primary focus and concern of that position
and the person who in that position.


So for now , I continue to look for brass tacks.
Perhaps you will find some of your own.

More on Justification

Many people will say at this point, okay that's well and good but,
it is risky and we know what we got, so why make such an effort.

Well,  one issue that is difficult to get around is this notion that
one side is liberal and the other is conservative.  If that was
so that would be fine, but it's not true so there is an immediate
hypocrisy to the whole thing.

My main argument is there is sufficient difficulty inherent in this
system that it requires serious remedies.  But there are serious
benefits to  these remedies, for example in bringing states into
closer co-operation.

I will continue with this later.

Hysterical and Historical

As I have mentioned before, everyone who has ever lived, lived in " modern " times.

Another, somewhat unusual perspective related to our common notion of time
is that " Justice " was invented a few years ago, when in fact is it probably
the oldest of all human concerns, and has been with us I am fairly sure in some
form, essentially forever.

But my focus now is in justification for this notion of an elected committee
to elect the U.S. president.  This is not so simple as you might think. 
But just, for a moment, consider that such a scheme could possibly
help diffuse the current stand off we are experiencing in Venezuela.


But that, of course, in another story.

When the body politic becomes consumed with a particularly difficult
malady, and I will describe that as simply this over arching desire to
belittle those with whom we should be co-operating, this is a serious
problem which requires a serious remedy, by which I mean, if you
keep doing the same thing over and over again, you will undoubtedly
find the same problems.

So I am suggesting though this my be considered a radical remedy to
reduce this aggravating and needless problem, we should consider
that by trying to elect someone who is trying to bring people
together, is a very attractive idea, and that this process may
help reduce these needless problems that develop as result of
following  formulas which are not working. 

And this process should create a greater level of co-operation if
by no other reason than it will encourage states to co-operate
with each other on organizing a new election.


c

Reality, so on, and hollandaise sauce

All I have to say about: hollandaise-sauce-recipe


Briefly, continue on with so on,   the main issue I see is
the false sense of security by the back and forth motion
of political sentiment, and it's connection to a vague sense
of moral direction.

But I have to mention now reality.  Of course reality is a
!! broad !! subject.  It is also subtle and complex and
I like to think of it as multi-dimensional.   It seems to
be brittle and solid and sometimes fluid.

It seems like I have at sometime in the past discussed this
a bit, but I am not sure when, although I will append this
page with that info, when I am able.

Meanwhile, at this time I just want to assert that reality is
mostly a participatory experience.  But in addition I will
go on to suggest it becomes much deeper and more meaningful
as you extend participation, by which I mean having many
and distinct perspectives, improves how we are able
to deal with it, both as individuals as well as collectively.


So back to so on, I think that by trying to get the individual
most able to bring about national unity , but not from a
partisan position  but rather from a broad based
national perspective is fot the U.S., the best way to go.  And by
having a national election for a committee to elect
the president, we might have greater hope that we
actually do get the " best " candidate from the lot.

But also for the final leg of the election, when it has
been narrowed down to 2 or more candidates, or after
the primaries are done, then it seems reasonable that
those candidates might have there own committees,
but not directly connected to any individual national
political party.

And, as I have stated, there may be many solutions to these
issues,  but at least for me , at this time this solution seems
like a good one, and not too difficult to implement.





 

Democracy and, so on ...

Once again, this is mostly so on, but I feel it is also
appropriate to mention some ideas about democracy.

Appropriate or not, when I started this blog I mentioned
the firefly as a metaphor for democracy.  What that
really suggested is that democracy is quite aspirational.
Now to be a practical way to go about things, it needs to
be more than an aspiration, it also must deal in a practical
way with human and social needs and wants.

So you have to think in terms of what is the difference
between these three things.  What is a want, a need, and
an aspiration. 

Well I like to think first that a just society is to a great
extent an aspiration.  At any level you might think it
could be more just.  Now as far as needs are concerned
I would say, clean air , clean water , reasonable
accommodation for health and safety fall more into
the needs category. Things like lower prices, and higher
wage might be wants, but when taken together we need
to consider all these issues when we are thinking about
something like a practical democracy.

Back to so on, how would the committee to elect the president
itself be elected?  I think that those candidates for this position
would need to get themselves or be assisted by a
party onto the appropriate state ballots which I think
the election would be slightly before congressional
elections, two years before the presidential elections.

What this means is the soonest such a committee could
be properly elected would be 2022, two years before
the 2024 presidential elections.

One thing I think I should point out is that with this
system, you might end up electing two left/leaning
candidates or two right/leaning candidates.  There
would be no way to assure you would have
one right/leaning and one left/leaning because
the two candidates that did the best in the primary
would run against each other.  But that is I
believe for the best.  Also, to be thorough I should
try to express what left/leaning or right/leaning might
mean, but I will not do that.

Another twist would be that more than two candidates,
depending on the way the election went, might run
in the final election.

Obviously I could discuss something right now
about current political issues, but I'm not going
to do that either and so, I am going to continue from
here in future posts, discussing justification.




 

Culture, Civilization, and so on ....

A bit on culture and civilization, mostly ... so on ...

Well, you have two fairly distinct concepts. Both begin
and end, and some out last others.  But for sure they
rise and flow.  And one thing, I believe and most likely
has a great deal of validity ... is that what causes this
are virtues and those virtues are the things that endure
and persist from one culture to the next or one civilization
to the next.

Now, I have not a great deal of insight into why I just
wrote that, but, I think it's mostly about the title....

Anyway, so on ....

Three things, who pays for it, how elected, and all that.

Most likely requires legislation, but who pays for it
I think is public and parties.  In other words all the
parties interested or eligible to have candidates in
the election.

By public is meant, individual regulated contribution.

The committee, I believe should be elected by,
groups of states, not individual states, because
that would reduce significantly the number on
this committee.

All that, relates to it would most likely need
a permanent address. Like not sure really.
Ideally the committee would function likely for
a short amount of time, but would need to
maintain a staff all the time, for regulatory
purposes.  ( I think ) ....