I think we may well get off on the wrong foot in our discussions. I don't mean by this that anyone's opinion is unwelcome or deluded, but I have a suspicion our general talents might produce something different and better. It's a matter of some regret that we aren't all neighbours working to some common purpose (in our diversity of course Molly) beyond our electronic connections. I don't quite mean that we should up sticks to form a collective in Chile (perhaps near the town of some of Orn's spiritual inspiration), though I must say I wouldn't discount this from dreams. I wonder whether we could achieve more in our discursive arguments, though I'm conscious trying this might spoil what we have. It was nice to be invited for a curry down at Lee's the other week, though the minicab return from Manchester to London might have made this the most expensive meal I have ever eaten! When I have a new thrundge-grommet for the jump jet perhaps I could nip for rather different forms of spiritual cleansing chez Molly and Jenkins! I've been reading some comparative philosophy of late and re- discovering there is a world one can find our diverse voices being subject to scrutiny in. What I sense 'wrong-foot-wise' is the obvious fact we are talking, teasing, chattering, perhaps laudably without too much 'intent', yet somehow a purpose we all share about 'real change' is somehow deferred and the point we all share is somehow 'elided'. I think I may refer to this as 'secular democracy' and as Orn says above, or at least gestures at in dog-tail wagging, this cannot be the right term. I remember some years back that a group formed calling themselves 'New Paradigm Researchers'. Their manifesto was truly awful calling everyone 'co-researchers' (meaning 'patronised mugs') and calling on us all to allow the world to directly impinge on our unconscious, apparently not realising this was a very perverse form of positivism with the mind redefined. It was all upper-class twittery. With this rather deflationary proviso, I do wonder about the extent to which we are following a rather scientific agenda in terms of trying to exclude much of the world in order to have the space to talk at all and it might be interesting to work out what we are excluding (perhaps simply by default) and how this defines us. One can read Chomsky, Rawls, Habermas and on (most don't) and find elaborate expositions of a 'clean politics', but none of this 'cleans' the human nature defaults from the 'dirty world'. One can find public choice theories that accept selfish human nature and seek to marry individual selfish decisions with public interest. Most of us will have seen what happens to 'integrity' once guns are pointed in its direction (or threats from bosses etc.) and I guess we have some shaky ideas about 'deep politics' too. One might wonder how our 'flowers' can bloom out there in the 'world of weeds'! We might just understand more of what is going on by reflection on what we think stops our ideas from working - I sense our very thinking is constrained by having to fight an enemy that is unseen in plain view sapping our energies and courage. For all our diversity, I would suggest there is very little of practical significance between any of us - we want democracy in a fairer form, would want its Guardians under democratic control (not like Bush, Blair or the Mad Dinner Jacket) in public scrutiny and don't want to become the next leaders to be corrupted by power ourselves or to elect the next Mugabe. Our ideas might turn out to be so simple that it would only be possible to assume something complex, nasty and mystified prevents them being theories-in-action.
On 2 Oct, 14:16, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Democracy clearly isn't just about voting occasionally for parties we > probably think are corrupt. In the UK we have slipped to the cynical > position that all candidates are broadly the same, self-interested > jobsworths - I used to hear this regularly in years gone by and think > it was a very unworthy position - now I believe it is the sensible > position, though only if we genuinely want to change the system. The > changes needed are 'big' but not impossible or ideological. It's > obvious our main political parties do not want to take part and are > really only interested in 'business as usual'. > Our government is focused in Westminster and one has to wonder why > this has to be the case given electronic communication. There is no > real way to monitor what our MPs do or to get rid of useless or > corrupt ones. My guess is that most of them are both and that this is > inevitable because of the party system, but I would stress I don't > know this as the information for informed decisions is not generally > available to us - we have to make 'guesses'. The media is little > better than an adjunct to 'business as usual' rather than a fourth > estate. > > I want to see a smaller State. We have massively expanded the public > sector - so much so it is impossible to gauge the real size as we have > all kinds of off-balance sheet finance initiatives, QUANGOs and > charities providing basic services. Sweeping this away would almost > certainly cost 2 million jobs and I have no belief private sector > entrepreneurialism can fill the gap - this kind of economics has long > been a lame duck itself. My guess is that 6 million people are > already unemployed and many others under-employed. There are massive > deficits in our pensions and welfare and at the same time we have a > very large body of jobsworths on very high salaries adding to the > pension burden. The answers are miles away from any proper public > dialogue. > > On 2 Oct, 13:16, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Great point, rigsy. The structure of government and function of > > leadership of any group should be determined by its developmental > > needs. I think what Chomsky is calling for is more purity in > > democracy, less corruption, more voice for citizens and organizational > > opportunities for subgroups. Democracy in the true spirit of > > democracy. The challenge, is to create a form that will serve the top > > and bottom levels of development for citizens, those self motivating > > and sustaining, those not. Chomsky's view isn't new but it is > > timely. The American transcendental poets each spoke of > > individuality, freedom, citizenship and the mandates of democracy and > > were a big influence on the politics of their time. > > > Souvenirs of Democracy. by Walt Whitman > > THE business man, the acquirer vast, > > After assiduous years, surveying results, preparing for departure, > > Devises houses and lands to his children—bequeaths stocks, goods—funds > > for a > > school or hospital, > > Leaves money to certain companions to buy tokens, souvenirs of gems > > and gold; > > Parceling out with care—And then, to prevent all cavil, > > His name to his testament formally signs. > > > But I, my life surveying, > > With nothing to show, to devise, from its idle years, > > Nor houses, nor lands—nor tokens of gems or gold for my friends, > > Only these Souvenirs of Democracy—In them—in all my songs—behind me > > leaving, > > To You, who ever you are, (bathing, leavening this leaf especially > > with my > > breath—pressing > > on it a moment with my own hands; > > —Here! feel how the pulse beats in my wrists!—how my heart’s-blood is > > swelling, > > contracting!) > > I will You, in all, Myself, with promise to never desert you, > > To which I sign my name. > > > On Oct 2, 12:00 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Citizens can be content in empires and monarchies, as well, if there > > > is peace and security, fair taxation and laws, accepted social strata > > > and freedoms, etc. A vote doesn't mean much if you are saddled with a > > > corrupt government/politicians and call it a democracy, republic or > > > the city council. And if nations decide to defeat trade rivals by > > > unfair practices, they are probably asking for wars/war monger > > > dictators who appeal to the basic needs/wants/resentments of their own > > > citizens. > > > > On Oct 1, 10:20 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Exactly the issue Neil…’we’ cause the problems and on many different > > > > levels. However, I’m not sure it is due to lack of democracy…not > > > > saying this is not the cause, just not sure. > > > > > The ‘old’ unions had their function and arose in a different time > > > > based upon specific needs. All such things change. And is it really a > > > > mystery as to why specific characters arose to power? I’m not sure > > > > this is a puzzle at all. > > > > > On Oct 1, 3:44 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Indeed Orn - there is definitely a baby in this bathwater. I would > > > > > hope never again to experience the 'Zil Chill' of the former Soviet > > > > > states or the grim feelings I've had elsewhere away from these shores, > > > > > though we need to understand we cause many of these problems by > > > > > failing to achieve more democracy. I'm an old union man, but don't > > > > > want to see a return of the old unions - however, a new form of > > > > > insured representation for all is possible. If 'democracy' could > > > > > produce Hitler we need to know why and how - even Mugabe was once > > > > > voted in for real. > > > > > > On 1 Oct, 17:41, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > As critical as I am of the ‘democracy’ that I know, mostly with the > > > > > > intention of retaining and/or improving it, I am quite thankful that > > > > > > this lifetime was not spent in Cambodia or other such countries. The > > > > > > current experiment is preferable when a comparison to what is is > > > > > > conducted. And, when compared to the codified words “…in order to > > > > > > form > > > > > > a more perfect union…”, the ongoing process is seen and must be > > > > > > recognized. I do. > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 9:26 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > We like to think of the UK Parliament as the 'mother of > > > > > > > parliaments'. > > > > > > > We are much the same in sport - always resting on our history of > > > > > > > inventing the games others now beat us at! Most civilised > > > > > > > countries > > > > > > > seem more democratic than Britain, but I only ever visit or live > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > them as an alien. In France, in the late 70's I discovered my > > > > > > > illusions were just that as police and troops laid waste to a > > > > > > > shanty > > > > > > > town with bulldozers and I found out how casual labour was > > > > > > > treated (I > > > > > > > was undercover on a drugs bust). The US has always seemed so much > > > > > > > more democratic with all kinds of elections we don't have - yet it > > > > > > > generally is not. > > > > > > > I actually find a lot not to like about democracy - the Athenian > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > had a privileged Demos and practised ethnic cleansing of an > > > > > > > economic > > > > > > > kind we see in Domesday Books all over the world - and there are > > > > > > > obvious problems such as asking the uninformed to make decisions. > > > > > > > This latter is a key problem as it lets in charisma and all the > > > > > > > old > > > > > > > techniques of persuasion because we can always rely on the > > > > > > > majority > > > > > > > not to be able to follow the argument. The Germans were probably > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > best educated, most scientific, most cultured people on the planet > > > > > > > when they voted for Hitler and the Nazis. Hitler may have seized > > > > > > > power illegitimately, but Germans voted for him in droves in > > > > > > > elections > > > > > > > around the country. Other countries had their own Nazis in > > > > > > > considerable numbers. We will vote for any dross - this should > > > > > > > make > > > > > > > us rethink democracy. > > > > > > > > On 1 Oct, 17:00, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Sadly, I couldn’t get tickets to hear Noam here in Portland this > > > > > > > > week. > > > > > > > > > And, I have found that he gets much of what you say we should > > > > > > > > fear > > > > > > > > right Neil. He just isn’t quite as charismatic in his brand of > > > > > > > > ‘evangelism’ as some though. > > > > > > > > > I fear we in the Colonies are at the cusp of yet another Civil > > > > > > > > War… > > > > > > > > only not so ‘Civil’. The ‘best’ political action my > > > > > > > > disillusioned > > > > > > > > brain can imagine at this time, other than a true ‘new’ tea > > > > > > > > party, is > > > > > > > > to fulfill the ancient cry of ‘Throw the bums out!’. I was > > > > > > > > skeptical > > > > > > > > about the actuality of the BO regime from the start and now > > > > > > > > that the > > > > > > > > ‘party in power’ has vetoed health care for we the people and > > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > reinvested in the demonstrated failed practice of sexual > > > > > > > > abstinence as > > > > > > > > well as a continued hegemony, it really is time for change. > > > > > > > > Eisenhower > > > > > > > > was much wiser. > > > > > > > > > As a sort of Paul Revere of the day, I call upon ‘we the > > > > > > > > people’ to > > > > > > > > see that every political person in power is replaced...with 3rd > > > > > > > > party > > > > > > > > individuals if possible. There is no other way to gain political > > > > > > > > attention today. This even though I fully embrace Noam’s notion > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > Anarchy: > > > > > > > > > “…Anarchism, in my view, is an expression of the idea that the > > > > > > > > burden > > > > > > > > of proof is always on those who argue that authority and > > > > > > > > domination > > > > > > > > are necessary. They have to demonstrate, with powerful > > > > > > > > argument, that > > > > > > > > that conclusion is correct. If they cannot, then the > > > > > > > > institutions they > > > > > > > > defend should be considered illegitimate. How one should react > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
