You are confusing the concept of potentiality with the level of factuality that already includes the concept of potentiality. I explained that to Lee just recently in another thread.
Shouting at the so-perceived deaf with exclamation marks doesn't make your truth any truer to them. On 23 Sep., 09:02, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > " I wonder if you are missing the language point - we can't just take > 'leadership' as a 'good'. ... at least in our apparent worship of > it." > > Worship of what ? Leadership ? Indeed, the language, to be " > worshiping " leadership ! ? When " Leadership is just an asset, quite > as many others, and is just as amenable to abuse and misuse. > > Again, there are indeed massive powers ranged against the potential > for emancipation. It's just that the fact is elementary. What next ? > I see leadership as part of the solution, even of the problems it > itself causes. > > We, those who are capable and have the opportunity, need to get to > work, despite the deep and pervasive problems all about us. Writing a > 50,000 word tome and converting one single individual to this solution > providing application of leadership ... both have merit, not more or > less ! > > On Sep 23, 12:32 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Nothing wrong with what you say Vam. I wonder if you are missing the > > language point - we can't just take 'leadership' as a 'good'. I sort > > of go with Orn's point on 'thought' in this sense too - at least in > > our apparent worship of it. The animal situation is more complex than > > not being a product of thought. I would not challenge that animals > > have collective decision-making processes, but am inclined towards > > thinking this indicates much we believe is the product of our thought > > has earlier origins. The rub is in what Francis does above - the > > ideas are great and there is a potential for emancipation, yet there > > is a massive 'default power' ranged against them. > > > On 22 Sep, 19:56, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Why must " leadership " be understood only in the political context ? > > > May be, by doing so, we are giving a meaning to leadership that is > > > needlessly restrictive. > > > > When I think of leadership, I have in view a population with varying > > > measures of ability ( or disability, constraints to ability ) to deal > > > with looming challenges and tasks, opportunities and threats ... to > > > take steps in the dark, in uncharted areas, in non - being ... in an > > > attemp to deliver on what is required, illuminate the terrain, chart > > > the paths forward, reveal the being. > > > > This will always be provided by individuals or groups, who 'd ' climb > > > the Everest ' because it is there. The population could happily > > > follow. > > > > I would say we require such leadership everywhere ... in science, > > > philosophy, society, economy and business, politics and law ... > > > everywhere. > > > > And quite as everything with us, leaderships are prone to be corrupt, > > > subject to greed and ' attaining their levels of incompetence.' > > > > This calls for more leadership capabilities amongst us, not less, to > > > continuously replace the old. And, technology supported systems in > > > place to constantly monitor and control with a parliament and an > > > independent judiciary, vibrant media, right to information and > > > vigilance mechanisms, to effectively deal with deviants. > > > > From what I see, it would take us ( in India ) decades before the > > > system and individuals evolve to the possibility more ideal leadership > > > outcomes. > > > > But that, that we are not yet evolved enough to deliver better than > > > what we are doing today, is no reason for us to devalue leadership > > > itself ! > > > > As a pure asset, leadership is irreplaceable. If I had my way, I'd > > > multiply it many maniy fold, everywhere ... democratise it, so it > > > does not remain priviledged and actually be less exceptional or rare > > > than it is today. > > > > On Sep 22, 10:58 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > There are fascinating and exciting ideas in the concepts of > > > > deliberative democracy/deliberative polling. Of course they blow our > > > > conventional models of power and leadership apart. The second major > > > > problem is that they make the party systems in our parliamentary > > > > democratic systems obsolete. And that's an area where so many vested > > > > interests are dug in so deep that, even if an inspired "leader" might > > > > be tempted to push ideas coming form the "deliberative" corner, I > > > > think he/she would be quickly and efficiently shafted by the behind- > > > > the-scene power-brokers in the (pc-dominated, therefore no longer > > > > smoke-filled) back-rooms. > > > > > The rumbustious old Bavarian politician, Franz-Josef Strauss, once > > > > described a particular definitional comparison from the positive to > > > > the superlative as going: > > > > > enemy ... deadly enemy ... party colleague > > > > > Francis > > > > > On 22 Sep., 18:55, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I think the history of leadership shows it is pathologically abhorrent > > > > > face Vam - but most terms are noble and ignoble. Even when we all > > > > > think current leadership is bad we can only (if lucky enough) vote in > > > > > another one. This is a great survival context for leadership, if not > > > > > for us. George Gallop thought his opinion polls would greatly > > > > > strengthen democracy, but leadership has rather usurped them. We have > > > > > the technology for more deliberative polling (I have an academic paper > > > > > should anyone be interested) and have had a few experiments. The key > > > > > to living with more of the noble face of leadership starts in more > > > > > communication of opinion and removing one of the ignoble sides - that > > > > > of promoting false opinion and propaganda. Deliberative Polling is > > > > > just one idea - we could also move towards much more localised > > > > > accounting within a system developed from it. All cultural systems of > > > > > leadership I've seen rely on some kind of control of the leadership. > > > > > I suspect now that leadership is everywhere it isn't needed, > > > > > controlling us, broadly as an unfriendly parasite. We need decision- > > > > > making in our hands, but even something as obvious as this comes with > > > > > the knowledge the wrong form of this just slows everything to a > > > > > trickle as most people can't see beyond their own immediate > > > > > interests. We need to recognise the Doublespeak of easy sloganising > > > > > in a path to demystifying social cohesion. I believe the spreadsheet > > > > > could come to our aid here - as an example of technology enabling > > > > > decisions in a deliberative context. I must say, old friend, that > > > > > once I discovered what 'adult talk' to be, I have had little time for > > > > > it! > > > > > > On 22 Sep, 16:35, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > " The leadership meme seems to support itself well in survival and > > > > > > we > > > > > > are not addressing this well in our discourse." > > > > > > > This seeming support for leadership in your view is a stranger for > > > > > > me > > > > > > here, Neil, considering how pathologically abhorrent an idea you > > > > > > have > > > > > > consistently presented it as in your posts here in past. What > > > > > > happened, in this late age ? > > > > > > > No, this is a genuine surprise I express. Especially since a ' > > > > > > collective ' leadership is largely theoretical ... yes, Athens > > > > > > like ! > > > > > > > This is adult talk I am attempting. It seldom happens. So if doesn't > > > > > > now, I wouldn't be surprised ! > > > > > > > On Sep 22, 6:27 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Workers of the world were supposed to unite - sadly the employers > > > > > > > did! On greed (somewhat tangentially), we are discovering links > > > > > > > between emotions and how we come to 'define terms' in our > > > > > > > arguments. > > > > > > > Disgust has had a lot of attention in links to morality. Greed > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > seem to have some moderated use in putting things away for a rainy > > > > > > > day. In terms of it leaving the hearts of 'people' (no doubt an > > > > > > > unwanted PC point over Orn here!) I go for a democratic > > > > > > > technology. > > > > > > > Like Don I don't fear other peoples, though I'd move from > > > > > > > dictators to > > > > > > > 'hierarchies' - these (including ours) are now often 'false > > > > > > > democracies'. For me, the answers lie in technology - though this > > > > > > > cannot be the 'heartless form'. The leadership meme seems to > > > > > > > support > > > > > > > itself well in survival and we are not addressing this well in our > > > > > > > discourse. > > > > > > > > On 22 Sep, 08:41, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > “…Anyone notice certain harmonies in this stuff and the > > > > > > > > reaction of > > > > > > > > Obama's modest national health plans? …” - archy > > > > > > > > > Yes, much of the same revision of history along with using > > > > > > > > propaganda > > > > > > > > (lies) and fear tactics by those with power. Unfortunately, the > > > > > > > > ‘rest > > > > > > > > of the story’ includes: > > > > > > > > > “…The Marian propagandists appealed to a yearning for peace and > > > > > > > > stability. But a whole generation had grown up since Henry’s > > > > > > > > break > > > > > > > > with Rome, and much of the Marian effort surely represents the > > > > > > > > unseemly spectacle of men trying to catch the genie of free > > > > > > > > thought > > > > > > > > and put it back in the bottle. Protestantism, certainly, was a > > > > > > > > minority faith, but though the numbers who stood up to witness > > > > > > > > could > > > > > > > > be counted, it was less easy to anticipate or evaluate the > > > > > > > > undercurrent of strong feeling that showed itself on the > > > > > > > > execution > > > > > > > > grounds. The advisers of Philip of Spain, Mary’s husband, grew > > > > > > > > nervous; it was possible that public opinion would blame > > > > > > > > Philip’s > > > > > > > > influence for the burnings, so perhaps, on pragmatic grounds, > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > executions should be suspended, or held in secret? The imperial > > > > > > > > ambassador told Philip that at the burning of John > > ... > > Erfahren Sie mehr » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
