This is a short "arm chair" analysis of Democracy as if one might describe Democracy as a person experiencing different settings. It is not intended as a journal, diary, novel or novella about a person's life. Neither is it meant to portray episodic characterizations reminiscent of a day-time television drama, colloquially referred to as a Soap Opera. While it gives short references to other time periods in order to make an analogy, it is not an historical chronology. Nor does it convey an attempt at some genealogical inter-connectedness used as a type of "deeper" self-analysis by probing into a presumed anthropological reproduction of past occurrences that may be based on hearsay, imagined, or distorted events; for the purpose of developing a pseudo-reconstruction which might be purposely misconstrued and calibrated to coincide with some presently prepossessed predilection as a pseudo- explanation of some current, past, or hoped for future enterprise as if it were fated, or given some high probability of recurrence in the nature of some egotistically- derived formula of reincarnation. The present venture is a type of analysis some readers might indulge in just as other readers may engage themselves in a task to analyze Democracy from a philosophical perspective. While each perspective utilizes its own peculiar words and ideas respective of the separate disciplines of study, both overlap with a similar intent of gaining insight into why the "person" may be the way they are and act accordingly. Along with these two disciplines of study can be added the subject of Sociology, that we might well label as an intermediary perspective between or equally juxtaposed with Philosophy and Psychology.
While some readers might want to "pigeon-hole" the present exercise as being referential to a specific discipline of study they are familiar with, no claim for doing so is made. Such readers need a clearly out-lined path along which to take an intellectual journey. Many of them will not read something which does not portray conventional sign-posts involving particular words, phrases or even language. Indeed, some need pictures because their mind is not imaginatively adept at contouring images of comprehension without such. Like a street, road, or path that has a name and mile markers, some readers are easily lost and can not find a direction without being shown. Such readers need to feel comforted by sighting some familiar landmark that they can identify; yet others feel more relaxed in the absence of such tell-tale signs of civilization. Without such signs, coherency is difficult for such readers. It is like traversing a Sun and Moon lit path upon which is encountered an insect animal or plant they are unfamiliar with and may react to it with caution, apprehension, or out-right fear. Such is the task for introducing others to a budding life-form called Cenocracy. It is new, it is different, but not so as to be totally unfamiliar, since present Democracy is a more primitive version thereof. In an attempt to describe Cenocracy, a psychoanalysis of Democracy can be helpful. But it is an analysis which can not be overly clinical nor repletedly indulge in some form of popularized ("Pop") psychology. While both sides of the street will be viewed, one must also proportionally stroll in the middle of the road... perhaps taking an occasional zig-zag tour like a child adventuring in a toy or variety store. In other words, though the topic is a serious one, there is nothing wrong in partaking of some amusement.
In undertaking such a task, for those readers only interested in reading presumed "authoritative" texts written by socially noted professionals, the current effort takes into consideration that the majority of non-professionals will be reading the present page. So-called "professionals" are much too busy to be "distracted" by someone they've never heard of or isn't a respected member of an association they are connected with. And yet, in terms of a psychoanalysis, it is known that even so-called professionals can give a different diagnosis for a given patient. Likewise, so called "professional" Philosophers and Sociologists might well provide a different analysis of the same topic. But this is true for any profession... including auto-mechanics, plumbers, physicians, dentists, musicians, gardeners, etc... Hence, in short, no claims as to any socially recognized status of "professionalism" are made or implied. If this were a requirement before posting a page on the internet, there might well be a paucity of internet sites. Imagine if every person trying to sell something on EBay had to "prove" they were a professional by some standard as having to belong to an association of sellers... even if present sellers might want to claim a level of "professionalism" based on a particular product line, having few— if any bad reviews, customer service skills, fairness, etc... In other words, one's definition of "professionalism" may be little more than experience "captured" from an effort to practice certain behaviors, which some might want to include that one must not only 'walk the walk', 'talk the talk', but "dress the dress" of some assumed dress code of professionalism.
Democracy is as much a dress code as the labeled "Sunday Clothes" worn by some going to (a) church, a wedding, a funeral, a party, etc... But the practice of Democracy can be as varied as the clothes worn on different days of the week, month of the year and how one lounges about the house, works in the yard, or cleans out a garage. The interpretation of what is meant as "Equality" also is varied from place to place, as can be seen by the different laws being practiced by different States. While some might prefer to refer this as being a difference with respect to an interpretation of truth; judicial truth applied as a right can be viewed as a form of equality. Getting others to adopt a similar perspective of equality is not always as simple as having everyone wear the same type of clothing, but it helps as a means of trying to establish a particular perspective instead of focusing on the differences of apparel. It is a perspective well considered by those promoting a dress code in public schools. They want students to focus on taught subject matter instead of expending energy and money on apparel that can detract from the process of education. And despite all the for and against arguments it is an apt analogy in the present context. However, the "clothing" reference is metaphorical, having more to do with a particular perspective as a mind set than as a piece of apparel.
Many of us have witnessed a change in a person's demeanor after they have put on new clothes, shoes or received a haircut. Even children recognize this as can be recalled from a short commentary given by a grade-school girl who said that boys always act weird when they put new or clean clothes on. Many a child's wild antics have been put into restraint by simply having them put on a new pair of clothes, a suit, a dress, or placed into a situation where their peer group are more disciplined. Such favorable transformations are likewise sometimes seen by permitting a person to view themselves in an animated portrayal such as a filmed production, or a simple photograph. This also is true for letting someone see themselves in a mirror. The philosophical counterpart of this is the adage about "Knowing Thy-self". To know ones-"self", or another, enables a means to help, (or hinder) the "self" in becoming the best (or worst) that can be actualized. The "self" is seen as a transformational aspect, or in simpler terms, something which can be changed. Yet, the recognition of this aspect to which we label the "self", places it into a category of something to be described as "other"... like another person or "side" to a person such as might be portrayed in statuary and named Janus, typically fashioned with a front and back characterization though the present image is three-faced.
But, it is of need to note that this description of the "self" is being supplied as a metaphor and not to be interpreted in a modern sense of bipolarism or muti-personality which could lead us into considerations of an incomplete personalization based on a cultural or brain maturation hindrance and not the customarily assigned notion of 'depersonalization' which accepts the account that everyone is, for the most part, born with the predilection of a complete personalization and a lack or limitation of one's "person" or "self" can lead to internal and/or external conflicts which might require intervention from a mental health professional to assist a person in establishing or re-establishing a connection with their self, with the word "themselves" to be distinguished as multiple "selfs". The human species may not be as psychic-ally organized as our ideas about the "self" often presume. As such, present forms of government are systems which adhere to unrecognized models of depersonalized attendance defined as normal. To see oneself as a viable member of one's society may mean that one practices common variations of a depersonalized perspective.
The character known as Sherlock Holmes, was particularly adept at surmising the occupation of a person from the apparel they wore, which may include jewelry, a cane, language usage, a pipe, demeanor or mode of transportation. But such "clear" deductions to an observant eye and voluminous cataloging memory are sometimes only possible if there are several people who wear the same "costume" and the detective comes into frequent contact with them. However, like Holmes himself, there were those who could act the part of another character in order to disguise their true "self". Whereas one could be an Englishman or woman, they might have been taught, learned on their own, or unknowingly acquired characteristics which in toto or in part led to a concealment of who they actually are. While some people remain, for the most part, who they are no matter what apparel is put on, many others may be dramatically changed for either a short or enduring time. Actors and actresses exploit this characteristic... but so do many others in varying situations. Some may in fact prefer the role of their "self" as seen when wearing a particular type of "apparel" in one or more settings; to an extent they prefer not to return to the old "other" self they had previously been accustomed to. They prefer this "new self" they have been introduced to. Such an introduction may come about by simply being referred to as "Mr.", "Ms." or "Mrs." In other instances, a nickname or job title suffices to create either a temporary or permanent change of "self"... which may be encouraged in definitition by the wearing of a badge with one's name, picture and company logo or departmental assigment/alignment.
One might encounter various renditions of the idea that "the clothes (or suit) makes the man", or that the "fashion makes the woman"... as if ones-self is an actor or actress playing the part they think is appropriate for a given apparel that is worn. Indeed, it is well known that a person's "self"- attitude can be altered simply by the wearing of a particular ensemble of clothing. But let us also note that simply putting a monkey into a suit does not make the monkey a human. A zebra remains a zebra though its stripes have been painted a single color. In other words, just because you put on a particular set of clothes, such as a sports uniform, does not automatically transform you into a professional... or even an amateur for that matter. Some people simply play a part of portraying expected behavior because it is an accepted standard. Others in a give social group may well treat you with a different attitude, and your behavior may change accordingly, this does not mean you have been transformed into something which was not already present. A person may resort to exhibiting wild, or uncivilized behavior if thrust into a situation which induces stress. Some people need to be taught how to act savagely, if one's-self makes allowances for change because of circumstances.
Though there are some who might say that a person can not act savagely unless such behavior is already present and is customarily hidden by acceptable mannerisms and dress in circumstances which do not require savage behavior for one's "self" to have a self-valued measurement of survival; this may also be true of other character traits such as talent, kindness, compassion, genius, fortitude, resourcefulness, and associated thoughts. If we accept the notion that ideas are behaviors, they too may take on different types of apparel. For example, if we view "Democracy" as a certain set of clothes, or merely as a single pair of shoes or gloves, we must wonder what the true "self" of Democracy is... and what conditions will make it possible for it to no longer use varying tactics of Camouflage? If we say that the behavior called "Democracy" is something that has been learned, then it may be that humans have been born with a capacity for developing such an idea and transforming it into an ideal. Having a capacity can be defined as an aptitude for doing something which is another way of saying you have a latent, or subtle capability for acquiring a given set of skills required for a task in a given setting. Some might want to label "Democracy" as an instinct for enhanced survival, just as religious ideas are survival mechanisms. For example, you may have a mechanical aptitude or have exhibited an interest in things described as being "mechanical", or electrical, or food preparation, or drawing, or thinking, reading, writing, singing, public speaking, etc..., which, when exploited, can be used to help your-self survive better— so long as conditions exist which make your aptitude able to be applied. Otherwise, it is like being a concert pianist in an environment where those with a singing or whistling skill are more desired. Your so-called great ability in one social setting may be of little worth in another setting. No doubt you seek out, and seek to foster the design of an environment which best suits your ability. Indeed, a person's life can be dramatically changed simply by having an inclination of their's interpreted in a positive or negative way.
With the task of psychoanalyzing Democracy, as if it were a person exhibiting behavior, we must recognize that because there are different Democracies being practiced, it is of need to focus on one "person" that is most familiar. Hence, the current effort is directed towards the character called "American Democracy", as opposed to a psychoanalytic characterization of "British Democracy", "Russian Democracy", "Turkish Democracy", "Japanese Democracy", "Korean Democracy", etc... And such a distinction is of course irrespective if the reader prefers to describe America's social governance as a plutocracy (governed by the wealthy), oligarchy (governed by a few people), etc., or by way of citing an economic attitude of imperialism. In any respect, all governing designs use a model of democracy that is "fashionable" for the times... even though some governments resort to varying types of Autocracy (governance by one person's directives) such as a dictatorship, monarchy, etc..., to which some might want to include the notion of a theocracy (governance by a deity or those claiming authority to act as a go-between). And the claim of being a "Democratic Society" in no way dismisses the fact that human rights abuses can, and do takes place... even by those societies claiming to be fully civilized. One's definition of Democracy, just as one's definition of equality, just as one's definition of a human right can change as quickly as one changes their underwear.
Along with the proposal of psychoanalyzing America's form of Democracy, we must present some definition of what is interpreted to be "Democracy", since different definitions, whether formally described or not, are used to determine one's interpretation of what is or is not a representation thereof. In the present exercise, or "practice", if you prefer, the typically found dictionary description of what a Democracy is, will be used. This description is semantically illustrated in terms as being a government, or rule, by a given population denoted as "people". Granted this particularly sentenced illustration may not be found in any dictionary, but it is hoped that not too many readers will object since its generalization is an acceptable level of specificity. However, it does not describe how many people, who the people are, where they are or what they do. Many of us take the label "people" to mean ALL the people, which includes every citizen and not just a select few, or that some citizens are not permitted to legally effect governing change due to age or some other restriction such as in the case of voting. The generality is actually used as a type of lawyer's "small print" of exclusionary principles... which are specific rules that are available, but not easily recognized nor even understood.
While it will be easy for some readers to find faults for America's Democratic Personality, and would like to see them included here as a confirmation (of truth) that what they see or think is seen or thought, is in fact seen by another; the effort at constructing such a list might well be exhaustive and detract from the intent of changing America's Democratic Character to assist the people in achieving a greater fulfillment of their lives. A psychoanalytic approach must include an attendant Hypocratic oath of well being for the patient. If we are to point a finger at a blemish, we should also provide a mirror and a remedy. If we are going to describe a fault, let us also be aware that we may simply be projecting a perception of something we see in ourselves and are eager for someone to assist us in our discomfort, pain, sorrow and suffering... sometimes described as "a squeaking wheel gets oiled". If we are to blame, let our efforts also be directed from a sincere desire to provide constructive criticism. Let us also not be using a moment of complaint to conceal short-comings we have come to see, or think we see, in ourselves. Perceptions that we may describe as an evil, as saintly, or some measure in-between, but remain as small, imperceptible occurrences, that can be more acutely recognized by an increased population... by the adopted larger presence of a public "self" that acquires personalized articulation... through a Cenocratic Referendum process of social self-governance.
Suffice it to say that America's Democracy is not perfect, but in order to assist it towards a greater realization of its "true self" (self-actualization), we must be instructive by offering alternatives; which all of us can take part in a concerted effort at behavior modification. Simply saying "it's impossible", or "it will never work", or "there's too many variables", etc., may be more along the line of offering a list of excuses to conceal a "couch potato" level of laziness or some unrealized fear of some unknown or some presumed unfamiliarity... instead of as a viable alternative to consider in a collective brain-storming effort where individual ideas are not only permitted to be offered, but tried... and not subjected to immediate exclusion because the dictates of a particular group make excuses for not trying to produce a form of social self-governance with greater equality for fear of losing their current "self"-image by having found a niche within the current system. Far too many "alternatives" are little more than projected acts of frequently engaged in self-sabotage, self-ambush, and self-punishment... like so many body piercings that have achieved a social acceptance. The collective expressions of a neurosis are, for the most part, overlooked, while many acknowledge the existence of collective expressions of a psychosis in the form of a lynch mob mentality. And such a comment says noting about the socially accepted forms of socio-pathology conventionalized into business standards.
A reader might want to argue that the aforementioned "too many variables" involves changing the behavior of millions of people or the behavior of those in thousands of different authoritative positions. And that the general public exhibits a herd mentality that can also be found in those who view themselves as a professional, perhaps based simply on their interest in a given job structure for which they can retire from. An example of this being the "professional soldier" whose ideas of patriotism may involve the act of self-sacrifice for one's fellow soldiers or country, even when a directed mission is acknowledged as being suicidal.
There are lots of variables, just as there are lots of complaints. While we may list of few of them, an attempt to list them all might necessarily need to include new one's which crop up, those that are noted as a "social problem" that is either solved like a disease, or is being addressed, in some manner, such as a prison system. Making lists (graphically or mentally) and pointing out "social problems" is a characteristic many, if not all of us do to some extent. But our lists are limited. While some behavior, deemed a "social problem" appears to recur over time and in different parts of the world, to which historians may make note of, even so-called lists of "social problems" by so-called professionals are limited. And this limitation, as well as any effort to address a particularly described item, may begin by using the heading of "social problems". Perhaps it is necessary to consider that one of the so-called "social problems" is the two-word phrase "social problems." We must wonder whether this phrase has become a "hang-up" that those of us anxious in solving social problems, won't let go of... creating a sort of leash... instead of as a useful appendage like an umbilical cord... or it is an umbilical cord that we must be detached from.
Surveying a history of Democracy shows that the public frequently is placed into positions for which there is no alternative but a dire one... one in which the public suffers needlessly... though some finality may be presumed as a gain... a reward. And yet the public retains the perception that their Democracy is eternal... regardless of how often, how long and by whom or what they experience privations. The public refuses to question the Democracy that they have inherited and extol as some type of perfection and not as a tradition sentimentalized by observing songs and symbols created by actions of war, social struggles, and defiance. It is a legacy which not only transforms, but deforms the character of the public "self" to see its reflection in these terms, and no other. Like an adolescent who views themselves in a fanciful mood of immortality. Democracy is not immortal. Neither are present religions. All will be devoured by the march of time and as it consumes the present into a past on a planet with no real future, in geological or planetary terms. The public "self" in search of ever-increasing expressions of redistributed equality that created and perpetuates various forms of democracy, like the emotional sensibilities of a child, must grow up. Democracy as we know it must be put aside like a child's security blanket. The social "self" must come unto its-"self" and achieve its own, non-vicariously administered voice.
Each progressive account of the public coming to acknowledge a clearer self- reflection has been promulgated (made public) by a declaration of rights. Here are three examples:
The English Revolution of the 17th century promoted the document entitled "An Agreement of the People (1647) which spelled out desired public rights. Authority at the time, (just as it does today in different fashions), agreed that the public should have equality before the law, but not before the ballot box. Hence, today, a true Cenocratic Referendum Process is not in effect.
On July 4, 1776, the American colonies promoted a Declaration of Independence from (Great) Britain. It was followed in 1791 by Thomas Paine's (historically viewed) appraisal of— (reasons for)... the American Revolution in his "Rights of Man".
On August 26, 1789, the French National Assembly adopted, as a preamble to a new Constitution, a "Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen", which proclaimed the rights of the individual.
The practice of a "Democracy" (people rule) was new. It came about by an increased acknowledgment of both an individual and collective "self" asserting its right to make a greater assertive contribution towards self-governance. Revolution to establish a greater sense of an individual and collective "self" was made necessary because reigning authority did not want to practice a proportioned equality. It saw, and still sees itself to be superior to the common lot of humanity. No doubt it may try to muster every resource to prevent a greater expression of a further realized right to an actualized "self" proclaimed by a Cenocracy. Though violent Revolution is not sought, it will be effected if necessary for the public "self" to gain the equality of a definitively separate voice. Whereas parents frequently encourage their children to believe in their self, the present form of governing parentage seeks to discourage the public self from maturing beyond the present forms of dependency. It wants to continue a role over the public as if it were born a deaf, dumb and blind mute. It does not want to encourage independence, it wants to suppress it. But the deaf shall hear, the dumb will be enlightened, the blind will see and the mute shall speak of its Right to be treated and respected as an individual.
If we can believe all historical accounts of past societies and their governing systems, then every form of social governance has had "social problems". These perceived problems are increased when the population increases. And the more the population increases, the term "democracy" (self-governance) takes on a different meaning and practiced expression. The more undisciplined a population, the more control a "democracy" must exert. And yet, it is an "undisciplined" population which conforms to a collective effort called a Revolution, which calls for the adoption of more Democracy (the freedom to rule one's "self"). The collective "self" of Democracy exerts its-self in a disciplined manner for a form of Democracy which permits greater "self-expression"... and not have its "true self" be told what to do by someone else like a king, queen, or selective group. How the "self" of a Democratic population sees itself is reflected in the form of its "self" expression. Present forms of Democracy, for the most part, define the "self" of Democracy in terms of some Representative model. They do not permit true "self" Representation.
Social problems in the past, as well as today, are interpreted to be the fault of those who speak on behalf of the population, be it a king, queen, legislature, religious leader, etc... The perceived social problems of the many were "solved" by the people themselves through exerting a right to speak for themselves, of which the present "Representative" model is a replacement of former democratic designs. When a population collectively directs a concerted effort towards a "self" expression, this then begins the process for the adoption of a differently practiced Democracy. In effect, it has seen its own reflection in a clear mirror, and not the one offered by authority which distorts reality into an illusion. Upon seeing one's true reflection in comparison to the distorted one, a population may become quite angry and violent. The present examination of the "Democratic self" is to try to prevent a violent Revolution and promote a calm determination for increased "self" expression by way of a re-fashioned government structure that involves a direct participation of the people as a truer form of "self"-Representation.
The realization of a truer self-image on the part of the public will necessarily force those whose activities promote a distorted image, to fight against seeing a truer image of themselves. They may not only practice various forms of "self"-denial for themselves and the public, but also resort to the usage of whatever resources they can muster in order to prevent Democracy's "self" from acquiring a greater level of liberty, freedom and independence... hence, "self"-expression. The present character of Democracy, in some interpretations, is that of a willfully stubborn child when it does not get its way. It will hold its breath, try to intimidate, manipulate, bribe and use treachery to maintain its world and its "play mates", whose actions it directs... like a controlling rich kid. The Democracy of the present also continues to exhibit characteristics of a person with a conflicted personality with respect to its morals, fears, hopes, dreams and abilities. Some readers might want to define this conflicted personality in terms of a split personality in that the reigning government has a decidedly different "mood" from that of the public. But this so-called "mood" is not an emotion. It is not an expression of fickleness or starry-eyed wistful whimsiness, but an actual character trait which is maturing as part of an as yet unrealized "self".
The type of medium to be used in order to provide the public a clearer image of its true "self", may in some cases need to be in a natural form such as that of a pool of water, such as directing it towards seeing its reflection in a wishing well. Others might be advantaged by seeing their reflection in an artificial medium like a mirror, with polished surfaces noted as a possibility, but readily acknowledged as a substitute that may or may not be necessary in some instances. Others may require other more indirect symbolic reflections such as being given a description by those who can constructive criticism by way of an anecdotal compliment. Others may prefer the "truth" provided from a source considered as trustworthy, without any conversational "lace", socially polite "trimmings" or other attempt to be unnecessarily "nice". Some prefer "brute" honesty and think it demeaning to be otherwise provided with information. They are suspicious of anyone who engages in flattery, flirtation or fiduciary inclinations.
Some readers will sum up that the form (personality) of Democracy being practiced anywhere, is a reflection of its population. For example, a 'distracted' population like that of America with its multiple types of diversions, (electronic and otherwise), practices a "distracted" form of Democracy, that some might want to define as neurotic (emotionally disordered), schizophrenic (ambivalent), sociopathic (capable of violent acts without guilt feelings), or use some other "more -or- less" label of rationality... to include moments of general craziness, madness and insanity. However, uses of such labels for a reader whose thoughts are not tempered by also characterizing the needed vantage point within the context of a "philosophically speaking" portrayal, may cause them to out-right reject such denotations as disparagements; because they have too close of a personal identification with a presumed understanding of what it is to be an American in an American Democracy. In other words, to suggest, philosophically or otherwise, that America is sometimes acting like a crazy person with definitive psychoanalytic terms, is an affront to them. It's as if they are personally being told they are, at times, irrational... when they think themselves to be as "normal" as everyone else. And they are... that is, they are "normally crazy".
The distortions of the "Democratic self" throughout the ages come to be supplanted by a developed sobriety in seeing itself more clearly and making reference to its-"self" through greater, or larger expressions of self expression. The expressions of its-"self" are like the adoption of a clearer form of articulation. For example, if one listens to the development of the English language over time, the clarity of expression moves beyond that which may be characterized as unintelligible drunken slurs, to that of intelligible sobriety. Hence, the change in Democracy is the development of a greater sobriety which its laws routinely reflect, though a large body of laws may well retain remnants of past "drunkenness" because a full sobriety has not yet been reached... or the old laws have not been reviewed so as to be altered, replaced, or discarded. Laws and policies which are deemed to be stupid due to incoherence or non-viability with respect to a changing culture, are those which can be viewed as historical examples of representative distortions of speech that had been brought on by a distortion of one's "self" perception. While the perception may be viewed as being common sense by those in a given context, if the context or the people change, the once held common sense becomes non-sensical through disusage.
This is not to say that there is a steady increase towards sobriety. Some cultures may experience a "falling off the wagon" as depicted by an insistent usage of slang expressions that are understood within a given culture as a type of jargon which may be used to conceal self-centered instead of group-centered activities applicable to everyone outside their specific social group. The insistent usage of an adopted jargon that does not gain a wide-spread survival advantage for everyone, or even a select group, can indicate that a level of socially accepted drunkenness has been adopted a s social standard. In effect, everyone becomes the town drunk who portrays varying affectations of sophistication, commonness, professionalism, etc... Their drunkenness is used as a justification for perpetuating conditions for accepting the drunkenness as a talent, giftedness, or even genius of a higher standard of behavior to be emulated. It is just another form of a distorted mirror image of an underlying true "self" that is as yet unactualized because the whole of the public can't see itself by using conventional means of reflection.
Conventionalized means of a self reflection typically entail the images of oneself derived from one's economic prosperity defined in terms of employment and potential growth of one's prospects for continued or increased earnings which enable oneself to achieve some level of desired consumption. It is a wholly different self-reflection than that derived from sustained privation due to a lack of employment or some income such as a pension, or other government subsidized benefit provided to citizens. However, in both cases, we should consider that such reflections are nonetheless superficial ones. The "true" self of a person, of a Democracy is a character that emerges at different times in various situations such as fortitude, talent, giftedness, compassion, wisdom, empathy, altruism, inventiveness, patience, sharing, insight, etc... The "true" self of Democracy has yet to evolve, to mature, to be realized.
The word "Democracy" is a name given to a population which practices bits and pieces of a virtue, capability and capacity for growth that have not been fully realized. "Democracy" is the name with the "e" ending sound often heard when children give reference to another instead of a more formal name. For example, instead of saying the formal names of "Richard", "Andrew", "Charles", "Matthew", "Edward", "Donald", "Herbert", "Patricia", "Debra", "Margaret" "Barbara", etc.; as children we frequently engage in truncations, or pet names of familiarity such as, respectively: Ricky, Andy, Charlie (or chicky), Matsy (or Matt), Eddie, Donnie (or Don), Herbie, Patty, Debbie, Maggie, Barbie (or barb), etc... Some names are already fitted with the ending "e" sound such as Billie, Bobbie, Betty, Sally, Mary, Tilly, Zo-e, etc... In short, we resort to abbreviations in childhood that often continue into adulthood, or some other abbreviated variation takes place. For example, instead of saying "Bobbie" for Robert or Roberta in childhood, we might resort to using a more "adult" version such as Bob for Robert or Robin for Roberta. Sometimes we forgo the usage of the "e" sound because it might reveal a female denotation instead of a male identity. For example, while we may say "Patty" for "Patricia", we would not likewise say "Patty" for "Patrick", even though some may do so aligned with a personalize context.
The point to be made about the usage of names is to suggest that "Democracy" is a name of child's informality aligned with a given perception to identify one's social "self". The name being used, as a label, has a specific connotation of the public's self identity. In order to improve on the perception for purposes of encouraging growth beyond this particular "self", the adoption of another name is important. The adoptions of another name increases the identity of "self" by being able to distinguish the public "self" from other public selfs. Referring to all social practices as a Democracy, or a Socialism, or a Communism, etc., is a type of enumeration. Individuality is stripped of a personal identity which distorts perception of one's-self image. Such a distortion of social practices is seen by those external to the American self-identity in terms of its Democracy. It is seen as a phony, a sham, a con-artist, a liar, a cheat, a bully, etc... Such disparities of its underlying true character are over-shadowed because such qualities are not permitted a full expression by the public. The nation loses its way, its path, and a unified direction of purpose because the public is suffering from an identity crisis. The public doesn't know who its true "self" is. Its "self" is being dictated to it by an over-bearing parental government that refuses the public to speak for itself by way of a Cenocratic process of Referendum.
The usage of the name "Cenocracy", though it retains the ending "e" sound, will provide the familiarity of former personalization with Democracy, and yet promote a valuable self examination, like so many of us do as we mature and are thus recognized for an enhanced level of speaking for ones-self. The name used can not be so unusual as to produce uncertainty due to a lack of familiarity of who it was and who it will become by adopting a new name in which to be recognized. It is an increased level of ownership by way of a greater definition of "self". A public that adopts the name of "Cenocracy" will be like those who adopted the name of "citizen" during the French Revolution. Such a name was used to enhance one's collective identity and self-respect that was distorted and abused by the governing authority in use at the time. The people revolted as a means of acquiring a greater self-identity by way of greater self-representation. Parental forms of authority typically have difficulty when their "child" begins to assert its-self, its voiced self-expression. Authoritative parents want to maintain control in terms of increased ownership for its-self, but deprives an equal ownership to "its" public not permitted to have an personalized identity of "self". The current perception of the public, as a self, will be dramatically changed as it begins referring to its-self as a Cenocracy.
Throughout history, changes in the governing structure have come by way of increased ownership of social conditions by the public. Nations which used variations of slavery, just as they do today, were usurped as the slaves gained greater self- representation. While some do not think of themselves as slaves, this is in part due to the fact that they are not given the name of "slave". The name "slave" became "serf" which became "citizen", as the public asserted a right to speak for itself in order to address conditions of inequality between those who governed, and those who were governed. The public, viewed as a child, started growing up and change its self-perception by way of adopting a new name for its-self. The public spoke up for its-self and asked for a greater share of the overall wealth of resources. Resources for which their labor gave increasing yields of. The public did not ask for a lion's share, but a fair share, an equal share. Present forms of Democracy do not provide a fair share of the profits. The public must acquire a greater self-identity... which can be acquired by calling its-self a Cenocracy.
While some would prefer a psychoanalysis of Democracy in terms of some one-to-one correspondence related to the "Birth" of the nation and a subsequent psycho-sexual development, the present brevity of introduction must remain focused on generalities related primarily to the intent of assisting readers with analogies such as in the development of an increased self-identity. For example, the developing "self" of women to speak for themselves and have an equal level of social ownership required that they fight a tradition of male-centeredness as the primary owner of a woman. Many of these woman adopted the name of "Suffragette" which afforded them with a greater self-perception and self-identity. While not all women marched in protest against the inequalities they perceived and suffered because of, those that did had equated the name with being a "true" citizen based on having the right to have an equal share of ownership. Without a recognized equality, they had less ownership, less control over their own lives... They were a modernized form of slave whose rights of self were dictated to them. They felt they deserved a greater level of self-respect that was denied to them... and represented a type of Democracy which practiced an inequality. Thankfully, they earned a greater level of ownership, of self-identity... though some see the existence of other inequalities in other areas of a woman's full identity yet to be realized. But such a realization can not take place because it requires the adoption of another name as a means of acquiring a greater level of self-ownership. Without the adoption of a new name such as "Cenocracy", an increased level of self-identity can lead to self-absorption and a decreased level of collective self-realization for an entire nation.
The usage of the word "ownership", when hyphenated as "owner-ship", has relevance in the present discursive monologue in terms of reflecting on the past to help with present efforts to produce a better future. As such, the labor needed to propel large ships required the usage of force in order to impel people to endure hardships wrought by inequalities. The owner(s) of the ship had a mentality of influencing legislated ideals which promoted the right of enslaving people to do what they wanted for their personal gain. The slaves lacked an equal ownership. When citizens began to view themselves as being more than slaves, the name of "slave" became equated with certain "unworthy of equality" persons such as those captured in war or those having committed a crime. Those who were seen as "citizens" were given an increased worth, a right, which prevented enslavement, or at least certain kinds of enslavement. Using the word "ship" as a metaphor for a territory that may be called a country or nation, and the public as holding various positions on the ship such as deck hands or those in authority over them; some might likewise be able to observe a change in the (social) winds taking place. While authority wants to 'stay the course' of present Democracy, the crew has begun murmuring an interest in directing the rudder towards an uncharted place called Cenocracy. The public wants to express a regained hopefulness of unrealized wealth and adventure that present Democracy says must be claimed on behalf of a select few. In order to do so, the citizen-ship must be alloted greater owner-ship, or they must mutiny because the presently practiced sailing policies on the Democratic-ship provides an unequal distribution of wealth.
Some of the people have jumped ship in an attempt to find greater freedom. While a few have taken up the citizen-ship of another country. In jumping ship, some have resorted to a decreased participation in the ship building and maintenance industry. They want to rid themselves as much as possible of being identified with an industry which spends billions on out-fitting vessels with war related materials, and yet the actual builders are forced to sacrifice having an equal share. Equality is being unevenly defined, distributed, and documented for accountability. Those in authority are provided with a greater level of equality in determining who, by what means and why a particular distribution (percentage) is warranted. The general public are denied this right. Their equality is less than that afforded to those acquiring a means to say what is or is not an equality. The public, for the most part, goes along with this method of measurement because it has placed its-self, in a position for accepting this as being correct. Like a slave thinking a king deserves a larger portion of resources than they do because of the different positions they hold. The usage of the words "Democracy and Democrat" (with its corollaries such as "Republican, Independent, etc.,) are means of placing oneself into a particular position with a particular perspective. In other words, they are labels giving a self identity which promotes the present standard of unequally dividing up wealth. The usage of the words "Cenocracy and Cenocrat" will alter the public's perception of its-self which involves a claim to a greater "distributive" right of equality to speak for one's-self as one's own Representative.
Those who adopt a different perception of themselves, like those during the French Revolution, used a name like "citizen" to increase their self-worth. Those of today say they deserve millions as a bonus or severance view themselves as having a greater self-worth than those perceived as being unworthy... regardless of the reasons for the judgment. It is a perception which displays the belief in a type of Democracy which permits them to rightfully claim an unequal distribution of wealth. Those who name themselves a Republican, Democrat, Independent, etc., have their own measures of self-worth... such as deserving to be in control of a Congress in order that their method of measuring equality is best or better than some other variation of Democracy. They prefer Democracy, or at least their flavor of it, over some otherwise named variation such as Socialism or Communism... perhaps rarely thinking about improving the overall quality of the "equality standard" for everyone and not a selected person or select group, by improving on the self-image derived from the usage of the word "Democracy" and replace it with the new name, for a new face and a new character, called "Cenocracy".
Indeed, to take but one example of using the word "Democracy" with a different "flavor" than some readers may be accustomed to, let us cite its usage by a group which called itself the "Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine". From the wordweb dictionary source we find the following description:
A Marxist-Leninist group that believes Palestinian goals can only be achieved by revolutionary change. In 1974 the (PDFLP) group took over a schoolhouse and massacred Israeli school children.
Despite the rationale for killing the kids, the killing of children is viewed by others as an abomination and is not to be equated with their usage of the word "Democracy". A violation of human rights is generally viewed as being anti-thetical to a "true" Democracy, even though other types of violation may be called laws, policies, procedures, tradition, common-sense, etc... But there are other examples of adopted behavior that many today would not be viewed as an exercise of Democracy, whether it be framed under the rubric of Socialism, Communism, Dictatorship, Monarchy, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Economics, progress, survival, etc... The problem with occurrences of violation being accepted is that they are not seen due to their time or place of occurrence, or are not consciously recognized. Small, incremental, sporadic, or individualized occurrences may be imperceptible to those who are preoccupied by attempts to procure basic necessities, secure employment— are nursing a physical, emotional or mental wound— or indulge in pastimes which distract their attention along channels of everyday mediocrity.
Like conditions of the past that we of today view as being absurd, disgraceful intolerable, etc., such events were not necessarily recognized as being wrong or described as an evil; and might well have been used as a means of establishing one's personal social fortune if the "discomforting" event that was being experienced by another was measured as being of less value, due to its type and abundance, than that being received by ones self as a distinct entity from another. In such circumstances, less (hardship, punishment, deprivation, etc.,) was worth more. One must seek value as one can in the circumstances that one is subjected to... like prisoners who may value a drinking cup as a prized possession while in prison, and yet in another environment may not give such a cup a second or even any thought at all.
The definition of "Wrongness" in past social conditions and a call for improvement came by way of an identification when occurrences were repeatedly seen due to an increased population, such as reform in living and working conditions. For example, a disease may not be called a disease if only a single person dies because of it. The notion of an occurrence that may later be labeled as a disease, does not come about until many repeated instances of the occurrence are acknowledged by someone whose vision and memory enabled them to recognize and remember similar instances.
For example, the need for plumbing and sewage may not come to the mind of anyone if only one or a few people bathe and toilet in or around a nearby pond. It may be that only after a larger group of people engage in the same activity does a "natural" activity appear to cause "social problems" which need to be addressed. But adequately addressing such problems may be delayed because those who have a means of effecting change are not similarly experiencing the particular problem being described. They may have their own private pond for bathing and toileting, whereby be unable to recognize any problem since they do not have a basis for empathizing with their constituency. Their world has a different culture than that of the general population. Their efforts are directed towards a recognition by those who are in a position to further their self-interests, and not furthering the interests of the collective population... because they don't know how to address that which they can not see, much less recognize as a problem needing to be addressed. The culture of government very often predisposes those in government not to see, recognize or respond to a problem before the population of those affected is greatly increased. Metaphorically speaking in a context of metaphor and analogy, those who customarily associate in terms of thinking in a billions scale, have difficulty seeing, recognizing, or reacting to a ones, tens, hundreds or thousands scale... such as in the case of poverty, lack of medical care, unemployment, crime, etc...
...It is not actually a self-ishness (defined as deliberate insensitivity or lack of sympathy), but a self-interest (as defined by acting normally in accordance with cultural standards they are most familiar with). A distinction can and needs to be made, since those exercising a "normal" routine of behavior for acquiring personal items of interest are not necessarily callous, they may honestly not know what to do in solving a problem they are confronted with... and find some measure of retreat from public solicitude by "acting out" a normal routine of behavior they define as an expression of a normal Democratic process.
Alternatively placed, this idea holds true for predation of the public by a government agency such as the S.E.C. (Securities and Exchange Commission). If predation occurs against only a single individual and for a small amount of money or other property, no one may see the occurrence as a problem to an extent the Agency is made to change its policies in this regard. But if the predation takes place against hundreds or thousands of people, even though small amounts of property are taken, the predation results in a theft which may reap millions of dollars for the Agency. If this activity takes place by several agencies, yet there is no one performing the role of a public advocate who is in a position to do something of substance about the activity on behalf of the public, even though individuals in the public recognize the un-democratic formula of fairness being practiced, the practice may not only continue, but become part of an unspoken of and accepted tradition.
With respect to the S.E.C., it is viewed that their is an intentional delay in effecting intervention of a company (or/and individual) that members of the public have complained about. The delay not only permits more focused attention on the company (or/and individual), but allows for a greater gain of presumed ill-gotten gains that the S.E.C. can take a percentage of, and the S.E.C. may not have to take the accused to court... the S.E.C. is permitted the roles of prosecutor and judge, and the public is forced to submit to their ruling. For example, in brevity, the S.E.C. stopped the operations of the Penny auction site known as ZeekRewards after receiving "numerous" complaints, but the actual quantity and who the complainants were has not been disclosed. It made the claim that the company was engaging in a Ponzi scheme... a method of receiving and redistributing money that is similarly practiced by the Social Security System, though it was not initially designed this way.
The S.E.C. 'hired' a "Receivership" to collect money from those who made money from the venture and to redistribute all monies to investors by way of a process and procedure which enabled it to deny some people a return of their money. Though former ZeekRewards members were never once individually contacted... all were supposed to know where to apply via the internet... and required to):
- Request their money to be returned by first registering their presence as having an interest. (It is actually ludicrous to think that no one would want their money back, but this tactic afforded the S.E.C. through its Receivership to increase its potential of gaining more money for its own interests.)
- To register a claim and provide account information (that the Receivership was already privy to but was another employed tactic by which they could create a deliberate obstacle.
- To register a claim for one's money in a time constraint. (This tactic is to use an arbitrarily assigned time constraint though no time constraint was place on it and it did not have to register its interest in wanting to be selected for the position which it performed in the manner of a monarch.)
The public had no say so in who was to take on the position of redistributing funds or to make an honest account of recoverable funds. The public is forced to do the bidding of a government agency assigned agent whose behavior towards former members was, to say the least, atrociously disrespectful. They should never have been selected for the job and when selected, should have been immediately fired for the way the public was treated. Whereas the public assumes the Receivership was 'hired', it may have in fact merely been appointed, meaning its payment-for-services was to be taken out, in proportion, to that which belonged to former ZeekRewards members. In effect, its role, and payment is that of a lawyer who was not hired by the majority of former ZeekRewards members. They were forced to accept the services, like being given an appointment to have a work-related injury diagnosed by a doctor working with an attorney hired by the company who doesn't want to compensate an injured employee. The so-called "professionals perpetrate a confidence scam because the public is led to believe that professionals will practice and exhibit a greater level of honesty, justice and truth value.)
Instead of the S.E.C., through its Receivership simply saying that everyone who is eligible to get a return will do so, they had former ZeekRewards members make a formal request and to supply documents containing information regarding accounts that the Receivership already had access to, when it took over the accounting ledgers of the company. The initial return was 60% of invested money, some of which came by way of those the Receivership had denied returning to the rightful owners of the (monetary) property. In effect, in order to get the standard "40%" lawyer fee for assisting in a case, the S.E.C., through its Receivership actually acquired more, since it used so-called "ineligible" members' money to pay out defined "eligible" members (those who jumped through the contrived process and procedure in the manner and alloted time... like some circus animal), the S.E.C., through its Receivership, engaged in its own form of Ponzi scheme. And we must also ask where the rest of the money is. No government agency or agent thereof should be permitted to take away another's property as a type of bonus, when they are given a tax paid budget for their efforts which are supposed to be on behalf of the public. Additionally, its position, as a government agency, conducted a confidence scam. The public should be able to have complete confidence in all government agencies without fear or apprehension that the public's vulnerability will be taken advantage of. The S.E.C. has stolen money from the public... and no one sees it except those who are injured. Everyone else, including law enforcement, Congress, and the White House see the acts of the Receivership through the same myopic lenses because they effect their own types of predation on the public. The public is on its own but very often is to scared to do anything to protect itself or cognizant of the fact that such branches of government will take the side of an Agency before it does the public... particularly if the public were to effect an expression of violent self-defense.
Yet, because it is such an obvious confidence scam, the S.E.C. and its Receivership are permitted to carry out this type of behavior because the public does not stand up for its Right not to be scammed by those who should be their advocate and not adversary. No doubt variations of confidence scamming takes place within different agencies' so-called public assistance purview, which makes it difficult for the public to recognize how frequently such scamming takes place. Because it takes place so frequently, agencies look the other way at the bad behavior of other agencies who will, in turn, look the other way when another agency commits a "business as usual" scam against the public. The public cowers in some defeatist corner with a myriad of excuses instead of standing up for its Rights to have their person and property secure from both external and internal forms of government-assisted predation.
Agencies involved in confrontations of criminality are sometimes calloused in their ability to recognize their own adoptions of criminality established as a defensive measure against the predations of defense lawyers which sometimes require a "fight fire with fire" mentality which becomes unconsciously exercised against those who are especially vulnerable, such as the public. Such predation against the public is used reflexibly and when acknowledged, is nonetheless defended as being an appropriate measure of legal methodology to be employed "fairly" in all cases. The presumed "fairness" is based on a notion of equal usage and not those it is used against. Clearly, standards for dealing with a criminal corporation should not be used against a public who was innocently caught up in the act of defined criminality. Nonetheless, even if the shortcoming is observed, no attempt for admitting a mistake is permissible in a culture whose mentality is one of defensiveness for having committed previous misuses of law. Taking advantage of a vulnerable public is viewed as an acceptable win, though its rules-of-play were decidedly contrived to permit the usage of a previously set-in-place operating procedure that enables it to accommodate a pre-established pecuniary gain.
When theft occurs in a piece-meal, siphoning off, incremental fashion, the small losses incurred by small investors are considered a type of financial collateral damage. But such small investments add up to millions when the number of investors is a manifold sum. Complaints to the S.E.C. are met with legalized excuses for permitting the confiscation of public funds because the public did not jump through the required (getting their money back) hoops that were purposely set into place in order to enable the S.E.C., through its Receivership, to create a condition of greater potentiality to have an increased proportion (cut) of the ill-gotten gains. The public is not permitted to make money by the venture, but the S.E.C. and its Receivership are! The present Democracy promotes and protects criminality to be used by government agencies... at the expense of the public. Because the typical "self" of the public is fashioned into separately cultured variations of meekness, shyness, and self-rejecting, most people don't stand their ground as a David against a Goliath. They give up because their individualized culture promotes standards of divesting the public's collective "self" into accepting the role of an accommodating servant whose individual voice is not loud enough and becomes dismissed as irrelevant. Complaints to Other government agencies may be sympathetic and transmit your concerns on some departmental letterhead, but they are most ineffectual, unless you get numerous agencies to send notice of their recognition of the complaint.
It is difficult for the public to interact with a government agency and its agents when the organization's activities are like a Den of Thieves with a practiced culture of lying in dealing with the public... and that this is an acceptable mode of working adopted by other agencies either by functioning similarly, or not intervening on behalf of the public. All other agencies abide by the perspective of the S.E.C. and its Receivership though it is obvious that the standard processes and procedures used by the Agency is based on the ulterior motive of gaining money for itself as a supplement to government funding wrought through contrived legal maneuverings that it can use defensively to act aggressively against the public like a law enforcement agency whose confiscations of money and property from those they arrest, goes into their personal coffers. The public has no self-protective recourse unless it resorts to accepting the position of being financially abused by an agency which should not use its position to take advantage of the public's vulnerability in what amounts to being a government sponsored confidence scam.
Otherwise genuinely honest employees, because of the workplace culture to which they are subjected and must conform to in order to keep their job; unknowingly assist in the illegal confiscation of public property because it is a set policy to indulge in an ulterior motive for acquiring funds above and beyond a government budget or subsidy. They do not recognize their activity as being an expression of anti-democratic fairness, protection and support of the public. In effect, their position as a government agency permits them to engage in an unrecognized confidence scam. At present, there is no law against government agency (or agent), employee (or agent), contractor (or agent) predation which can take different forms of expression and appearance, depending on the agency involved, for which the public should have protection from and be totally reimbursed for any loss. The public sorely needs an expansion of the anti-trust provision in the form of an anti-government agency predation law. The public needs to be protected from government agency acts of predation. As it is presently configured, the public is too vulnerable to being abused under spuriously contrived processes and procedures laughably called "law" or a "standard business" model.
There is no law because the presently practiced Democracy produces a culture which overlooks, conceals or may define as a "Business as Usual" phenomena which effects the situational occurrences of such predation on the scale and frequency it is taking place. Instead of serving the public, the public is placed into a position of serving the good or bad motives of an agency, someone in an agency, or someone affiliated with the agency or an employee thereof. The public needs an anti-predation law to protect it from government forms of predation. The public must have the right to act as its own advocate by way of a Cenocracy. The present government structure is too primitive to take on the needed task. Though in the presence instance the S.E.C. through its Receivership has committed a crime against the public, present standards of law and law enforcement serve to protect the single-minded interests of individual agencies and not the public.
To serve an agency without a desire to do so, is a type of forced labor... a type of indentured servitude as if to pay some unrecognized debt... regardless if the duration of a particular person's "interaction" is of a temporary nature. The usage of temporary workers to undermine employment laws is a well-known, well-used, and well-protected by government standards that subvert the public's right to acquire the means for establishing greater self-recognition as a viable member of society, self-improvement through active and sustained employment, and self-respect. The government aids the business community in perpetuating a de-valuation of the public's "self" like a re-cycled military recruit whose self-identity is repeatedly submerged into an automation for accepting the dictates of another's social control without question, and be thankfully obliged to defined this way of life as the best model of a Democracy. It is a social evil of the present age that goes unrecognized, like so many evils that occurred in the past but likewise went unrecognized and were accepted as a standard practice. Changes against evil practices can occur when they are realized, and to further acknowledge that the mere recognition that such evils do occur is itself a Revolutionary mindset.
Indentured servants of the past, use of child labor, and today's sweat-shop workers are examples of those whose "self"-worth— when measured by oneself or others is less than those who do not work in such "occupations". All are examples of forced labor brought on by various circumstances. Those in authority over the workers express a greater self-worth and may be assigned a title such as "owner, boss, foreman, etc., which is to be equated with a greater value than those who don't have such titles. Some people get so accustomed to a title as exemplifying a person's self-worth, that a loss of such a title make bring about depression and withdrawal. They have no means of expressing their "self" other than by way of a title and its accompanying duties in charge of people or something described as important. A tale to be told as an example, was the mayor of a town in Germany who became replaced when the Nazis took over. Instead of taking a menial job to support his family, he chose to commit suicide. His "self"-image was aligned with his title and position duties, and not with the well-being of his family. He could not see his "self" doing tasks which he used as a means of measuring a greater self-worth. This type of measurement e-valuation keeps some unemployed from seeking out or accepting employment which they think is below their "self"-standard.
For example, the President might never think about working in a fast-food restaurant after their term in office is over. Not only do most people not think of such an event ever occurring, they have an expectation for such not to occur... particularly those whose own self-image was bolstered by the fact that they voted for them. Not only the general public, but those in various authoritative positions would use their resources to prevent such a situation, not to mention that the amount of the President's wage helps to insure that there is no need for an ex-President to work at a menial, if any job at all. It's as if the person named "President", or "Priest", or "Football Player", or "Musician", or "Scientist", or "Professor", or "Mechanic", or "Writer", or "Doctor", or "Lawyer", or "Hunter", or "ex-con" (convict), etc., exude some sort of especial aura about them... and the aura entitles them not only with a particular distinction, but also places the person in social slot for which they are not expected to be removed from... and in many circumstances, be prevented from leaving. This presumed "aura" takes on the property of being transferable to others who think they should be esteemed by having met, personally know or have known, work with, or will meet the entitled person. The title becomes a type of brand, like a cattle brand with which ownership can be established. For example, on many occasions we might hear someone say "My" Doctor, or "Our" President, Or "Their" lawyer, etc... The title is used as a two-way value of owner-ship.
While increasing one's value of their collective "self" can bring about better working conditions, and all-around better social conditions for a given circumstance by way of increased equality represented by a redistribution of wealth; an increased sense of one's "self"-worth when adopted as a standard shared equally by everyone, causes those who have a sense of greater self-worth based on some monetary value, may seek out those social environments where the general social level of self-worth is lower. Because a lower self-worth shared equally amongst a given population is equated with larger profits for those whose self-worth is measured accordingly. Those with a low level of self-worth that is equally shared amongst all workers means they will accept lower wages, and few, if any, added benefits. Those who set up shop in a circumstance to reap greater profits, want to practice a type of Democracy called Capitalism, meaning they want to own the ship the crew is on, but provide the crew with the illusion that there is an equal partnership because they are permitted to receive and own a percentage of profits from everyone's combined efforts... even though a large percentage goes to a select few whose contributive efforts are proportionately selective to advantage them a greater share for an unproportionate effort. Capitalism is a form of Democracy that does not believe in an equal partner-ship, only the illusion thereof. While some might refer to this as "proportionate greed", the current form of Democracy permits this type of inequality to prosper.
Capitalism is permitted to prosper at the expense of the public because the owners of the "ship" do not want the public to be its partner. Capitalism will promote a "right to work" law as if it were an expressed opinion of valuing equality, yet the same form of Democracy in which such a law emerges, permits a larger expression of inequality as well. Those who permit such a Capitalist inequality to prosper at the expense of the public also encourage those who practice Capitalism to devalue the labor of those whose greater self-worth want an equal share of the profits. Those Capitalists who see them-selves as being worth and worthy of the lions share of profits, are permitted to legislate laws in a country in accordance with their own Capitalist values. Legislators in Congress are permitted to give themselves a raise in pay and other benefits without asking the permission of the public, who is supposed to be their Boss.
The equality standard of Capitalists is schizophrenic (ambivalent) but those professing some non-Capitalistic doctrine, in this day and age, likewise practice their own model of ambivalence (mixed feelings). It is a mindset of the times, as it was in past ages, and may be characteristic not so much of "Democracy" per sey, but of humanity its-self. A mental illness can not be easily recognized if everyone practices some form of exhibition thereof. It is only when a non-standard form of exhibition is practiced which might bring about social attention, and perhaps some type of intervention to change one form of unacceptable mental illness into another, more acceptable form. Analogously, all substances can be poisonous, depending on the dosage taken. The present dosage of Democracy being consumed, and thus practiced as a normal behavior, varies depending on the culture. For example, while some may decry the usage of all hallucinogenics, others may think a usage of a particular type, such as peyote amongst some Native Americans, is an acceptable practice based on a tradition which uses it for events defined as religious... and religion is defined as good. On the one hand such a standard speaks of equality that is assumed to mean for everyone, and yet on the other such a standard is meant for a select few to have a lion's share of the profits... howsoever such "profits" are defined.
One person's meaning of equality is not necessarily another person's meaning. The same goes for love, wealth, happiness, job security, food, entertainment, etc... An "equality standard" means to adopt an equally standard definition that diminishes ambiguity to negligibility and negligible obfuscation by way of double, triple or quadruple-standards which can be subverted or undermined, and yet permits flexibility for growth, adaptation and resilience. An "equality standard" can be dynamic and need not be so static as to prevent creative, innovative or original uses for further improvement. It should be used as at tool for the most, not as a legalized weapon for a few... and yet the many can not use it to supplant the few who are creative, innovative and original. A standard can be all-encompassing if it is designed as such.
With respect to an equal share of profits or, if you prefer, resources, it must be understood that the resources are limited. In other words, the amount of money that is available, is limited. Not everyone can have all their money in cash. If everyone actually tried to have their "cash on, or in hand", there would not be enough to fulfill this request. Hence, the amount to be equalized amongst everyone must take place by way of imagination using numbers, such as in a bank account, or some other form of "potential" actuality such as land, a building, a product, etc... If no one bought anything, or only bought the barest of necessities, and instead, hoarded their money, extreme poverty for some people would ensue. Money has to be invested in activities which will provide opportunities for others to acquire a proportion of the money so that they can participate in the cyclical nature of the presently used economic system. High unemployment is the result of poor investment strategies based on an underlying "hoarding instinct", or a lack of investment. Both are colloquially referred to as greed. But people with money will not invest if government policies are so restrictive that the investor can only realize large gains over an extended period of time. Investors typically are not altruistic. While they may say they care about the people, this perspective is used because it is politically advantageous to be perceived as caring. Their actual care and concern is for profit... at the expense of the public if necessary.
The actualized "Cenocratic Self" should consider mandating proactive anti-hoarding laws which must also be protective of the person(s) whose actions have created a circumstance of large financial accumulations in terms of cash... unless a wider berth of anti-hoarding laws are called for. Protection from ever experiencing destitution because they have reinvested their gains into the public pool of largesse, must be a standardized minimal social reciprocation... in other words, they will not die a pauper or penniless in terms of an experienced privation, if their venture to assist the public, by way of reinvestment, falls short of expectations. While some may cite this as a separate welfare system for the once-wealthy, it must be noted that those whose efforts are above and beyond the call of duty, or are an expression of extended effort, are provided with a token of acknowledgment and respect. For example, a soldier gets a Congressional Medal of Honor and is entitled to a sum of money every month. An Olympian is given a medal and is provided financial opportunities associated with their effort. We, as a society, can likewise honor those who have expressed an other-than-ordinary reinvestment effort. Hence, it would not be a welfare system for the once-wealthy. Not all the wealthy build music halls, museums, or libraries as a personalize icon, some choose other ways of investing in humanity that do not turn out to be intentionally-designed lasting tributes to themselves. Reinvestment Olympians should be acknowledged and rewarded... even if all their money is lost.
With respect to the idea of an "anti-hoarding" law, as a 'public preservation provision', such a perspective is already practiced in the notion of an "anti-trust" law, which outlaws monopolization in order to promote fairness and equality in the market-place through free competition. In other words, it is to prevent hoarding and promote those activities which provide for an atmosphere of reinvestment unencumbered by a social condition which forcibly dissuades others from engaging in their own forms of like-minded investment. However, the control of attempts to monopolize a given market (product or service) by limiting a single company's or individual ownership thereof, does not prevent the individual or company by indulging in practices which limit the efforts of multiple others by way of offering a given product or service in substantially more ways, means or area than all the competitors combined. A monopoly can be gained by overwhelming the competition, no matter how many there are. A monopoly is an accumulation which presents the situation of hoarding... particularly if the hoarding is taking place because the individual or company invests solely in a single product and service that has saturated all targeted locations and no new locations are sought.
Another excepted anti-trust (i.e. "we can't trust them to do what is best for all") violation is the occurrence in which many dominant resources for one or more products or services may engage in a collaboration without its governing officers ever meeting to discuss the shared "cornering" of a market. (The "corner" being a reference to a choice location where multiple paths, streets or roads intersect, thus taking advantage of greatest public exposure and accessibility.) The "collaboration" results in all the companies raising their prices either simultaneously, or near enough in time and place to force the public to buy their "premium" (premiumly advertised) product or service that the public is convincingly persuaded it can't do without... or laws are in place which prevent the public from seeking alternative sources of similar products. The oil industry, and medical/dental treatment are three examples of legal anti-trust monopolization which are taking place.
Clearly, expanded formulas of an anti-trust or anti-hoarding law must be adopted to flexibly contend with unforeseen occurrences producing an act of hoarding product or service resources or/and the money made from such products or services. The usage of the phrase "ant-hoarding" is far more to the point, than the usage of "anti-trust", since it resorts to a lessened usage of language which obscures the presence of bad behavior. For a company or individual to try to undermine such a law by saying that they are "saving" enough money for a given project that requires a large capital investment, but never move beyond a preparatory stage; such "saving for a rainy day" pretensions are to be deemed anti-thetical to the public's right to a collective self-preservation and the accumulated funds redistributed in a fashion to provide for the common welfare of the whole of the public. They are not to be put into a government treasury without the express control being that of the public for public usage and not accumulation for its own sake.
Democracy, as an expression of equality, can also be found in Socialism and Communism. Equality is also found in more ancient types of governance with, for example a Monarchy, however so named the leader may be in a respective culture. Democracy is an accumulation of social rights. Different forms of Democracy have different accumulations or the same accumulations which define preferential differences of especial interest and concern. But it is an accumulation which is redistributed to individual as well as to the collective social "self". It is not hoarded except in its practice of how to effect social governance. Hence, inordinate degrees of hoarding can take place and assumed to be native and natural to the human psyche, but are an extension of a behavior some may refer to as an instinct, but is actually that learned by way of prolonged experiences of privation.
The human animal's expressed hoarding behavior in many different contexts suggests that it takes what it can and holds on to it; sometimes not because that which is held it has any real value other than to be desired by one or more others whose mindset is like that of a primitive species attracted to shiny or motile objects it wants to collect or investigate for potential usage for some basic consumptive need. Collecting is a form of hoarding, though many different types of collection are provided for the public's usage such as in a museum, art gallery, library, concert hall, planetarium, Aviary, zoo, park, etc... Other types of collection are used to determine a consensus of opinion such as when a vote is tabulated in a trial-by-jury drama. And though such a collective method of tabulated (sorted) opinion is accepted as a Rightful means of rendering a judical decree (that is) permitted in determining right or wrong, guilt or innocence; it is not judiciously applied as a trusted method by which a government of the very same public can likewise be run by the collective opinion of the people, via a Cenocratic Referendum Process. It is the expressed hypocrisy of an infantile mind sucking its own thumb as if it were some realistic substitute to satiate a suckling action defined as an instinct, and stresses a lingering disposition aligned with what has been called an oral stage of development... that the public is repressively encouraged to remain at. (Because it is thought that, for the most part, it doesn't know any better.)
But an argument sometimes used against the notion for establishing an equality, particularly by those who want and expect some greater dividend; is that equality breeds a mediocrity of body, mind and soul... and that in order to achieve a greatness beyond this standard, one must somehow engage in behavior that transforms a person, or a public, into exhibiting some non-standard, such as lessened health, more weight (obesity), greater sobriety (through abstinence or obsessiveness), greater criminality, lesser poverty, higher (sometimes over-valued) goals, lessened expectations (sometimes through forced deprivation), etc... An "equality standard" as defined by a notion of sameness or generality, leads some to consider that it also breeds indolence and an impotence of ambition. In other words, if everyone gets the same, there is no need to strive for more if the "more" which is obtained, will be provisionally redistributed percentage-wise... even to those who have no ambition. This is why some claim that it is better to have an "equal opportunity standard" which provides for the right to basic needs, but that beyond this, requires personal effort. The trouble is, the idea of "equal opportunity" is fraught with many individualized occurrences of prejudice, despite laws developed to combat prejudices of many different kinds. While the intent is well meant, it represents obvious short-comings in the law as it was legislated and how it is practiced, because it is a philosophy which needs to be enriched beyond the parameters afforded it by an observed Democracy. The philosophy of Democracy, as practiced, promotes occurrences of nepotism, selective net-working, inter and intra-group exclusivity, etc., and take place as a form of "separatist equality" formerly referred to as a "separate but equal" practice.
Democracy is a flawed philosophy. But so are religions, despite the would-be claims of adherents who say it is not the philosophy, but how and by whom it is practiced. However, thus stated, we should then develop a philosophy which takes in account the presumed flaws of those intended for the usage of a philosophy, and not use the flaws to subjugate, manipulate or deceive... regardless of what name is used to label the philosophy. But the of collective identity of a population does not change, because it is forced to identify its-"self" in terms of a given name, a given label, then no new "self" will be able to emerge. The old "self" will remain and continue to identify its-self with previous behavior and perpetuate conditions which permit such behavior to persist... like a drunk protesting against the relocation of a liquor store away from a schoolyard. Another analogy would be to suggest that all sources of coffee and tobacco would be required to stop selling these substances because they are genetically accumulative poisons that harm humanity's future development. No doubt excuses, denials, and even violent vituperations might be levied against those advocating a "stop selling it" slogan. The present practice of democracy is a habit of intoxication that many will no doubt fight against the course of treatment, involving a Cenocracy, to address its self-arresting growth processes. The cure may well invite the need for subjecting its users to intermittent, but regular doses of what can be described as "cold turkey", meaning the absence of the intoxicating drug. But such a statement is not meant to be taken literally, only figuratively in the sense that the former social self-governance model will be used less as a new one gains its social sea legs.
The professed advocated usage of a "democratic standard of equality" by government and business (notice that religion does not have practiced discussion thereof), is fraught with double meaning. On the one hand both value citizens (or employees) who expect to be treated fairly, and yet on the other it professes a right or a duty to uphold the ability to open up shop in locations so as not to have to pay a fair share of its profits. In an attempt to fairly straddle a fence between the people and business, it promotes a minimalist wage, but not a maximum one. In short, on the one hand both esteem themselves as practicing the expressed virtues of a Democratic State of Equality, because both are permitted to exercise practices of defining equality as they see fit, yet excuses its-self from having to practice the esteemed values with others whose self-worth claims an entitlement of greater equality. It's a pretty convoluted state of affairs that we adopt as a rationale for determining right and more right, with the former sometimes equated with that which can alternatively be viewed as a wrong... when circumstances present themselves for us to use this avenue to make the most gain... and those engaging in such gaming practices may not even be aware that they are doing so. It happens so frequently that it appears to be an established form of acceptable logic. Such is a character trait of the presently practiced Democracy... American or otherwise.
The present character of many people, regardless of what business, political or religious philosophy they practice, is to think they are worth more than one or more others... even though some practice a preoccupation of thinking themselves equal to or less than one or more others. Both examples are meant as a generality, as a supposition, and not because the mind of every single person can be read. One might further suppose that this trait of humans is or is not "specifically human". Some counter-part of this occurrence may take place amongst plants, insects and other animals, though it may be more often described in terms of a survival instinct of selective or mutual exploitation. It may further be supposed that it is a trait for which humans (and other life forms) might one day evolve (grow) beyond. Reflectively, this also may refer to the trait we call Democracy... regardless of how it is practiced... since the activity of growth is a very common occurrence and need not be applied specifically or directly to biological representations. The usage of the word "growth" can be applied to darkness such as in the phrase "a growing darkness" meaning increase. But in a more biological sense of the meaning it can be applied to an idea, such as Democracy, in that can not only increase by usage, but mature by way of application. With a further extension of the word "growth" applied in a biological sense, we might want to include the notion of metamorphosis such as in the stages of growth exhibited by a butterfly, or age-related periods of physical, emotional and mental development. Such divergencies of consideration can help to render a serious topic such as "psychoanalysis" a more palatable discourse when combined with asides meant as confectionery condiments.
In as much as a person may "size up" another person by which to judge themselves as being smarter, stronger, wiser, prettier, wealthier, wittier, healthier, faster at a task, more communicative, tougher, better looking, more talented, funnier, a member of a particular family, race religion, etc., or of a certain birthright, more cunning, more experienced at a given task, try or work harder, do something difficult on their own, are self taught, etc., the notion of being more or less "Democratic" is added to the fray of identity comparisons. In other words, the ideas we associate with being a "Democratic person" are used to determine the type of person we are dealing with. Though someone may seldom or never encounter being asked the question of defining what they understand to mean as being "Democratic", assumptions about such are sometimes made along with more conventional attributes. While there is nothing wrong with making distinctions, the means of applying a measure of larger worth typically involves some correspondence to a money-related acquisition. In other words, it is not necessarily a large accumulation of money, but some representation thereof such as a large (expensive) home, a new car, multiple clothing articles, etc... But even the poor engage in frequent conversations involving money in terms of cost, be it the high cost of a utility, a desired product, or even the lack of some money-related prospect, be it food, a job, transportation, traffic ticket, etc... Alternatives of wealth are generally displayed with large quantities, though some rely on more philosophical definitions such as "many blessings to count", "when you have your health you have everything", "laugher, a good appetite, and lots of friends" are priceless gems", etc... Some measures of wealth are determined solely by abundance or even a singular large item, such as owning numerous vehicles in a junk yard or car lot, having many children, owning many dogs, having the largest personal library, owning a piece of land (on which nothing may grow such as a piece of desert "real" estate [though it is actually a "false" estate]), or owning the largest tree, orchard, farm, farm animal, barn, alfalfa field, etc., in a given area. All of whom are practicing a type of Democratically defined Capitalism.
...And we should not forget those Capitalists who engage in a type of Democracy which promote a level of self-worth amongst its population in order to apply a tax-free type of taxation in the form of a tithing. Take for example the religion colloquially referred to as Mormonism. It promotes a greater self-worth sense of shared equality amongst its members who pay the church authority to keep practicing their methodology for extolling a defined virtuous form of Democratically- Socialist equality. The "State" is the Church, which promotes itself by sending out missionaries and building more Temples that are, in effect, cash making machines. The people who go to a church, however so named, are paying for a sense of self-worth that is defined as being privileged... though it may concomitantly be associated with a measured sense of "great" humility. But like the presently practiced form of Democracy, the "authority" does not share its authority-wielding "powers" with the general population who pay for the "privilege" of being a member. Both types of payments are forced on the public. While some readers might want to argue that religious congregations are not forced, the type of enforcement is by way of augmented reasoning based on promoted needs. As if a presumed "great" religion "needs" to build multiple temples. A problem with this tactic is that if the temples are destroyed, so will the self- worth of those who identify their worth with the temples, or a particular church authority should they be killed. Such self-worth is a false hood if it requires some external object or event to express it. An example of this occurred in a conversation with a member of the Mormon religion who said that, upon being asked, if the Temple in Salt Lake City were to collapse due to an Earth-quake, or an asteroid hit it, but no other structure in the area was harmed; they felt it would be a sign from God.
Personal worth established as an attachment to an external object or event is superficial. It is like a child who identifies them-selves' with a parent, sibling, or family structure. Being separated from them might produce what has been referred to as "separation anxiety". This type of anxiety will no doubt be felt by some when faced with the prospect of being detached from "their" Democracy. At present, most people do not have an owner-ship established with Cenocracy. Many are not even aware of its existence as a viable alternative to Democracy because it promotes not only a perspective of greater self-worth, but an actual practice thereof. While a measure of the old Democratic form of "Representative" government will remain for awhile, the standard of equality will increase because the people will be permitted to learn how to represent themselves. There will be a learning curve involving trial and error events, but it will learn how to speak for itself and thus acquire an equal partnership all-around. The present form of illusive Of, By and For the people government will be replaced by an actual practice thereof. A truer Democratic Authority will finally come to rest in the hands of the people. From them will come a new form of economy. The "State", the "Owner", the "Path finder" and "Keeper of the Flame", will be the people. It is a transfer of ownership to be shared equally. It will be a meritocratic equality and not a meritocracy that ensures a select few to reign supremely by way of perpetuating conditions which promote particular types of singular behavior to be merited above others.
While some think that an ideal society would rest with a practiced Meritocracy (valuing those with greater quality who exhibit superior abilities), those who are assigned such a label might well use their so-called superior abilities to legislate laws which promote conditions which ensure their abilities are able to be seen as being superior. Social conditions would be artificialized in order to ensure that certain abilities are able to reign in a superior condition. In other words, it would be like a controlled environment to ensure that a particular experiment takes place as planned in order to achieve personally desired results. It merely is a different way of tilting the scale of presently practiced Democracy which permits inequality. The way to increase equality is to promote a practice of self-representation. However, an increase in equality does not automatically present us with a situation of an increased quality of life if that "quality" is to be defined solely in terms of personal economic gain. Despite all the stumblings to be encountered with a practice of self-representation, like a child learning to walk by its-self, feed its-self, dress its-self, and speak for its-self, etc., the initial definitions of equality may be in the form of an ego (me, me, me)-centricism. Particularly by those who may feel they have for too long endured an economically defined level of deprived self-worth.
But giving the people a greater "equality"-defined level of self-worth might well be interpreted by some as the exercise of a circumstance where there are "too many chiefs and not enough braves". In other words, a circumstance where everyone similarly values their "self" with a high esteem, may generate a condition of arrogance and an inability to communicate because of an inclination to be in control and not be controlled. Giving merit to someone who exhibits a superior or "above average" ability in a particular context must include the ability of tempering the expression of permission to exert dominance through arrogance. If a superior ability is used as a tool to assist the group and not as a weapon to force compliance, this is a situation of shared authority to be valued. In other words, a worker can and will willingly recognize someone have a unique ability, but they need not be subjected to an attitude or practices which seeks to devalue them. When someone with a unique ability measures their ability in terms which devalue the "self" of one or more others, this is the practice of a Democracy-styled inequality. Those with a unique ability have been taught, by current social practices, to expect an unequal distribution of resources in their direction. The "I deserve it" denotation is a learned expectation... like gifts given to a king who defines themselves, or are flattered with a title of being "Great", which is a value larger than the common person... either singularly or collectively applied.
People are made to feel obligated to pay those who are defined as being superior, and thus provide a greater sense of self-worth through vicarious identification thereto or therewith. In days of old, people were given protection by a King who permitted them to remain within a Castle's walls... walls which they may have been forced to build. The king's authority to do what they do may have been established by vocal persuasion, and/or force... a force which permitted a level of freedom and equality that may not have been possible outside the Castle's walls because of marauding bands of thieves. That is, so long as the people paid a tax, which might be in the form of food, clothing or some service. Such a situation established a shared form of patronage, with the greater share of resources being alloted to the King. A King who might well have used the excess to indulge in various self-ish motives such as perpetrating false reasons (lies) to attack a neighboring domain to acquire more resources such as gold, silver, workers, soldiers, armament, domesticated stock, etc... Such an event takes place today, though the resources may be in terms of oil, technology, medicine, allies, etc... The authority of today use their excess "public gifts" (taxes) to indulge itself in various inclinations. Such inclinations may be intentionally perpetrated by others who want to somehow "prove" their worth and need a greater share of the public's "gifts" because of some pressing need requiring their unique ability. It is an ability that may go out of its way to instigate circumstances to establish an increased value to its self-esteemed worth based on being able to exercise it particular ability.
With a larger population of those who view themselves as having a greater worth, they often work together in perpetrating events in which conditions are purposely manufactured to require their participation. In other words, if their is no circumstance which exists that requires their particular ability, their self-worth is diminished. They must therefore engage in activities which help to promote circumstances which permit the continued exercise of their abilities and claims for an increased share of public gifts. The public is therefore required to pay more and lose some measure of patronage such as a public service if in directly paying a higher tax there would be created visibly undesirable economic circumstances. If claims for a greater share are called for, but a government can not tax the people either directly or indirectly, those that it previously allowed to keep a larger portion may be taxed instead... yet the rich are frequently provided a discoverable loophole in a legislated law. Laws are not typically designed with a clause that invalidates any and all loopholes which, if practiced, permits the user an ability to undermine the law. Another measure sometimes used is to increase its collection of taxes of those who shirk their "responsibility" for paying an equal tax value for money earned. Another attempt is to increase its efforts to collect money from those who try to abscond their resources into a different domain whose laws do not have a binding agreement with the offended government... such as in the case of those who put their money into off-shore accounts... so as to hide the true level of their "liquid assets" (cash, or convertible to cash) in a bank which has no legal responsibility to force someone to declare the amount of their holdings with the government in which they are a citizen. Instead of legislating laws involving the status of a person's citizen-ship who commits an act of what can be defined as perpetrating an undesirable inequality, the government uses antiquated forms of collection corresponding to the usage of antiquated forms of Capitalistic economic theory with its various forms of unequalized distributions of resourced wealth.
One argument against providing greater standard of equality to everyone, is that this standard becomes a mark of mediocracy that many attempt to either undermine in order to gain a greater personal advantage of a higher standard. And yet, it is also argued that an acquired standard of equality for everyone results in a mediocracy of enterprise. In other words, if everyone is given the right to have the same level of equality simply because they are a citizen, then they need not do anything above and beyond that which helps them to exist. They could thus indulge in a pastime of laziness. However, providing for the right to have a person's basic needs addressed, which, by the way, are still lacking in many respects such as health care, housing, food, etc...; also provides a means for assisting those who have an ambition for personal growth that does not have to expend its energies on seeking out a means to acquire basic needs... and can then use this energy to pursue other dreams. A lazy person may always remain a lazy person if they were brought up to engage in activities which ambush or sabotage efforts to exceed some standard beyond the norm used by one or more others in their social group. And while an ambitious person may always be ambitious no matter the circumstances, others who have a lessened degree of ambition can benefit from an increased standard of equality. It is socially desirous to help those who want to help themselves but are fighting against odds which may be, on an individual basis, in a particular setting, approximating some insurmountability.
In some social settings, ambitious people are presented with odds which directs their ambition towards acquiring some perceived level of equality by way of crime. Generally speaking, such people have poor impulse control because it has not been taught to them. It is difficult to direct oneself along a corridor of working at a job making minimum wage, when the standard of equality is one which is perceived as having a car, nice clothes, a house or apartment, etc... Their ambition is directed by impulse which, very often, results in the commission of a crime in an effort to reach a standard of equality they perceive that they "should" have as a right ("to be like everyone else"), or look prosperous to those in their particular social milieu. And yet, not only do some socially disadvantaged people commit crimes, but so do those who were born into social advantages. In short, if we are going to establish a minimum level of equality, than a maximum level of equality should also be formulated. Likewise, if we are to have a standard minimum wage to be nationally practiced, then a maximum wage should likewise be practiced. If those getting a wage at the maximum end of a wage scale is able to dictate how much of a minimum wage those at the minimum end of a wage scale can have, then, in terms of equality, those at the minimum end of a wage scale should be permitted to dictate how much of a wage those at the maximum end of the scale should be allotted.
Those at the maximum levels should not be permitted to dictate what is meant by minimum and maximum, or they may contrive policies, procedures, laws and insist on other social requirements such as age, race, religion, etc., as a means to thwart their level being gained by everyone. Those at a maximum level, however defined, very often want to maximize their control of the level... while those at the minimum level want to maximize their ability to acquire more. Efforts to bridge gaps of inequality are made exceptionally difficult because of advertising, television programs and motion picture portrayals of what is to be defined as wealth and that which is not. Even religious practices center their doctrines about rewards to be gained and a means of maximizing one's ability to minimize the possibility of punishment. Religions practice their own form of Democratized Socialism, or if you prefer, a Socialist brand of Democracy. The people are denied an equality of being able to receive God's word, and must defer to the presumed authority of a select one or a select few. The religious authority then determines how the peoples' money is to be distributed.
Religions do not practice equality within a given congregation or amongst other religions. If all religions are right, then God practices an inequality that may well also exist in the purported place called Heaven. If God does not practice an inequality, then people are not following the dictates of God who seeks equality for all. Collecting money from the poor who attend a religious service and then redistributing that money to other poor, is socialism. The "State" is the religious authority who claims it knows best how to redistribute the allocated monies of its congregation; whose "donation" is like buying a lottery ticket for which each contributer to the "pool" prays, hopes and wishes they win the Jackpot... which is a trip to a Heavenly paradise. Instead of saying that a percentage of the "donations" will go to support schools, wildlife, etc.., as lottery officials do, the church officials say a percentage goes "to help the poor" — a statement which may never be explicitly defined.
Yet, in order for Religions to exist, the believers need the existence of conditions which permit them to make and promote a distinction between oppositional points in order to justify taking one extreme position over another. For example, right over wrong, Heaven over Hell, good over bad, Jesus over Satan, etc... If this is not viewed as a condition of "bipolarism" (swings of mood between mania and depression that may be externally invisible but internally very active); then perhaps the reader might instead entertain the notion of "schizophrenia" (ambivalence). Just because there are millions of religious adherents does not mean they are not mentally ill. Religion, just as present day forms of social governance, may be unrecognized wide-spread socially transmitted diseases. For example, if a colony of Leperers never met a person without leprosy, their disease might well be viewed as normalcy.
Additionally, our presently exercised standard of equality might well be a mental disease, just as our thoughts about charity. While we of today may view such ideas as normal and good, most observers seldom consider that our desire— "a proclaimed right to be right", standardizes conditions which assist us with retaining this presumed self-image of goodness and rightness. Hence, so long as we use the act of charitable giving as an indication of our desire to be good and right, we will need social conditions which promotes charity as an institution with variously named divisions such as stores for donations that are then sold, but the profits are not publicly divulged as to how they were spent. Such charitable organizations are permitted to operate on a tax-free basis and are not subject to other laws that for-profit businesses are... which is a permitted standard of inequality. Much of the business of charity takes place in an "open secrecy" (keeping a low profile) of inequality that is defined otherwise.
For example, the amount of an "authoritative" person's wage and benefits working for some charities might well astound many readers and represents an unequal form of wealth redistribution. Hence, there are a select few working in a tax-free business environment who reap large rewards from an unsuspecting public who thinks their donations are going directly to help those in need. And even though for-profit businesses donate as a means of manipulating the public and other businesses into buying their efforts as a standard by which businesses should operate in a community; they do so very often by using internal social mechanisms which force employees to feel obligated into donating time and/or money. Should an employee refuse to participate, this action might well be used as a means by which a company overlooks them for a pay raise or promotion... they will be punished and not rewarded. Such instances of "socially enforced obligation to participate" occurs in all areas of the present so-called "Democratic" business, government and religious society. In short, the present form of "Democratic equality" frequently permits the usage of inequality being imposed on the public.
But religions are not particularly charitable. They claim a distinct ownership to the concept of God and morality. Indeed, attempting to divest the notions of a God and morality from religion might appear as being tantamount to nonsense for some readers. Some can not imagine God as not being a religion, though morality might be given some meritable ability to stand on its own. Without staking some type of ownership to the concept of a God and morality, religion finds itself divested of authority and power to substantiate its requests for donations. To describe religion as a type of philosophy which includes topics about God and morality in reference to human conditions, is devaluing its self-image. It's self-image is as egotistical as were those who developed the religion and claimed (owned) knowledge about the way to reach a sublime Kingdom filled with riches. No other religion is permitted to know "The Way" to Heaven, Nirvana, Peace, Tranquility, great knowledge, great wisdom, better health, etc... And by using the simplistic logic professed by religions and "philosophical religions", we might use the following equation of succinctness: "Religion is a philosophy about God. God is not a religion. Religion tries to claim some type of ownership about God and morality. One can be moral without religion. One can know God without religion. Religion tries to claim an ownership of morality and God". And though the last line appears to be a repeat of the same idea in an earlier-used sentence, it is actually an expressed practice of initiating one idea over another. For example, when speaking to a very young child, the ending word, such as "Yes" or "No" as a multiple choice selection to a question; can produce either a "Yes" or "No" reply depending on which word is placed first or last.
Many people are afraid of true equality because it is not known to them. It's never been practiced on the scale being proposed by a Cenocracy. People often want to excuse themselves from having to make a serious decision, so they permit someone else to be in charge in order to compliment or blame... even though the selectable alternatives may be acknowledged and understood. Some people even want to exclude friends, family co-workers and neighbors from being able to participate in the active legislation of laws because they think they are below some standard of ability; not realizing they are practicing an inequality... and in some cases, a prejudice. Uncertainty can not only breed indecision, but also mistakes. Whereas people don't mind leaving something for another day, they don't like making what may turn out to be a mistake. In a Cenocracy, where the people acquire an actual voice to speak on their own behalf through an enlarged Referendum practice, the right of the people to choose a decision may well resort in making no decision at all... though a decision is needed for a given issue. If the people should refuse to participate, or refuse to amalgamate different points of view to appropriate a Referendum process for a given issue, then the decision can be left up to the previously designed Congressional standard of legislating laws. The Congress and/or President can intervene in the event of a lack of public consensus being reached, by a provided-for judicial ability to carry on the traditional means of legislating a bill. The initial ability to speak for oneself, via Referendum, may make the public a little shy, squeamish, and further fearful of legislating laws which might be retaliate against by unrealized sources of social power... such as businesses closing, war instigation by government agencies, religious condemnation, etc...
In an effort to believe in the public "self" in order to speak up for the belief in one's-self of collective propriety as a Just Right; one should not likewise simultaneously believe that such a belief will automatically be supported or protected as a readily recognizable but unrealized public right. Trials and tribulations experienced on a course of deserved applicability (that is) stated Constitutionally or necessarily embraced by a Bill of Rights; may provisionally only provide for a level of public entertainment, since it is customarily suffused with a wide-ranging variety. Your age, your gender, your race, your apparel and your voice are the most visible commodities by which you will initially be judged. These the the very first messages, along with the time and place and placard-displayed echoes. All of which may or may not be converted into someone else's presentiments about a person complaint.
One must ask themselves if their message, their intent, can be effective without conventional media coverage? Is the protest for greater equality being used as a disguise for personal attention and if the desired type of duration of attention is not forthcoming, does one become easily discouraged? One must ask if the collective public "self" that is emerging is a mere caricature or an actual reflection? But there are other questions one might well entertain during of self-reflected on analysis that some may want to interpret as an act of over-analyzing, which an analysis so stated, might well uncover as a self-imposed ambush or sabotage to distract ones-self from a realistic model of self-actualization.
The usage of a self-imposed distraction can well be a filtering tool which helps one to focus more clearly, with greater purpose, by not permitting extraneous, non-related incursions to gain a foothold... like intentionally walking into a large variety store and retaining the image of a single goal without letting oneself to browse in any other area than that intended... though other exercises in metaphorical inter-relatedness for exposure to a larger array of alternatives for the specific goal in mind, are viewed as acceptable digressions. Furthermore, such questions need to be probed when engaged in a psychoanalysis of Democracy emerging into a Cenocracy from which can blossom a greater collective social self with its own voice. Will the voice be undaunted, or listen to echoes like the sirens heard by Odysseus? Will the public revert to some ancient Bi-cameral divisioning of intellect with which it interpreted various sounds as voices and the voices sometimes viewed as a coded instruction from a god? Or will the public acquire the usage of a collective voice which will metamorphosise into the voice of a skilled writer, artist, musician, scientist, architect, etc., and exhibit a genius that has long awaited its moment and place to set sail on a course of furthering the rewards of a greater realization? Time will tell the tale once the public's own voice has unfurled the sail of the present Vessel of Democracy still anchored to a dock of traditioned antiquity instead of chartering the treasure map of our collective hearts, minds and souls...
There is some need to comment about Democracy as being an expression of "Hyper- Sanity", or one might prefer to say a higher consciousness, an enlightened perspective, and various other means of expressing an idea which is claimed to be better or more useful than that which is generally accepted as truth, reality, and the assumed "common sense" frequently used to tout a belief. However, those who are insecure about pronouncing an idea which differs from the perspective of the common throng will try to provide it with some assurance of authority such as a god, law, "might is right", or definitive sensuality of appropriateness. For example, a religious text might be used to proclaim righteousness contorted to one's own inclinations and ulterior motives. Or a law may be interpreted to gain a political advantage. Or an expression of a military or para-military (law enforcement) presence is used to intimidate another into seeing things one way as opposed to another... in order to "encourage" an agreement. In terms of using sensuality as an "authoritative" injunction, one might say that "if it feels good", do it.
Democracy, at one time in the distant past, was a truly enlightened perspective. But so have many other ideas cropping up in a variety of areas such as religion, artistry, weaponry, agriculture, animal domestication, medicine, philosophy, medicine, anthropology, biology, astronomy, physics, mathematics, etc... Democracy, like Communism, Socialism, Monarchialism, Dictatorship, etc., have all been expressions of "Hyper-sanity" over a given practice, and viewed as "a" or "the" answer to one or more circumstances seen as a problem or at least a diametrically opposed perspective to one's own. However, having an enlightened perspective does not mean that the implementation of such an idea takes place by way of a similarly enlightened means. Indeed, wars have been fought in the establishment of Democracy and even the usage of one democratic process over another. An example of this is the American Revolution in which one form of enlightened Democracy supplanted that being used by the British government at the time. It is necessary to note that the parliamentary system in use at the time was an enlightened form of Democracy being practiced instead of the previous less enlightened forms. Each earlier form was replaced by the people getting a greater level of equality with respect to self-expression... frequently denoted as a "Right", and qualified by being aligned with nature, God, or a sympathetic appraisal of a developed human empathy.
And yet, it must be further noted that present Democracy is insanity. So is every religion. They are all expressions of insanity whose common practice is an effort to describe some semblance of sanity. This idea has been colloquially expressed as an inability to recognize insanity if everyone describes it as sanity. Those who may individually achieve a level of sanity that differs from the "insane-sanity" being practiced by others, may be looked upon as a creative thinker, a genius, a free thinker, a nut, an eccentric, or someone who is "out of touch" with reality. That "reality" is often described as what most people may appear to believe in... or so many of us assume. Very often, what we think about another's reality is not so common-place. While they may walk, talk, and act in accordance with the generalities that others are doing in a sort of parroting way, their "true self" may be far from that which we assume to be normalcy. Getting to know someone, whether in an informal, formal or professional way, very often reveals different characterizations. That which a person portrays may in fact be a variation of these different characterizations or 'characters', such that one might be inclined to describe as different personalities.
Democracy has different personalities as attested by the varying models being practiced in different cultures. While their are similarities due to the constraints imposed on our thinking by our human biology in this particular planetary environment, there are differences... some of which are outlined by cultural observances. For example, many Chinese government officials might well think they are providing the level of Democracy useful for their society, though others prefer some more European standard. Another example is to cite the adoption of a Constitution assumedly derived by way of a National Referendum in Russia, though others think this expression of Democracy is not aligned with other social practices of Democracy being used elsewhere in the world. And another example is to cite the percentage of a person's wage devoted to taxes by various countries in Europe in order to practice what is believed to be a greater level of equality; in contrast to the lower percentage taken from the paychecks of those in the United States which claims a "unique" valuation of equality standard... In short, different forms of Democracy are being practiced, all with their own reasons and validations... though each fall short of a greater expressed equality.
Just because the entire world is practicing some variation of Democracy does not mean Democracy qualifies as sanity. It is merely the standard by which sanity is presently being measured. It is a Democracy giving the illusion of a "people-rule", unless one defines "people" as a select group who make the final determination, or effect the actions of the final determination. For example, whereas a person can be elected by what seems to be a logical process of voting, the person elected may have no recourse but to effect policies in accordance with specific information from their advisers. If the advisers are working together to effect a given circumstance for one or more ulterior motives, it is they, and not the President who are actually in charge of Nation. Likewise with the actions of a Congress or Parliament. And all of them want to ensure that the public is in no position to say or do otherwise. They do not want the public to become their equal. They want the governing processes to restrain the public from achieving a greater level of sanity, of sobriety. They want the public to remain distracted, to think it unequal to social governing tasks, to be drunk and retain distortions of thought in order to better cheat, steal, manipulate, and motivate the people to do their bidding.
The American public, like so many other Democratic and other social governing circumstances, is a drunk, a drug addict, and a mentally disturbed population. It is purposely kept in an infantile stage of self-awareness and made dependent on those placed in charge of its governing processes... who are themselves drunk, addicted and similarly sucking on the same types of pacification. Most people refer to this as normalcy. And if you say otherwise to those who are easily offended by providing a different reflection other than their believed-in illusions, they might well react against you, in one way or another. Some can not see their presumed normalcy as being insanity without it negatively affecting their self-image. They do not have the personal wherewithal to view such a comment as constructive criticism. They do not see such comments as an expression of hyper or super-consciousness. To make such a claim, they routinely seek to point out faults, not realizing that expressions of hyper or super-sanity are not to be equated with perfection. A person might well only be experiencing a fragment, a glimpse, a tell-tale sign of a much larger realization that exists. Such fragments are not relegated to a sole appearance in any given subject area, at a given time, place or by a certain person... though some have thought to describe the how, when and means of an enlightened idea that is sometimes denoted as Eureka!, a flash-bulb going on over one's head, or a spark... though other analogies might well be used.
Each development of Democracy over thousands of years have occurred by way of enlightened fragments of ideas, of imagination, of insight. Those who are cited as an originator may not be able to fully explain how they came up with their idea. Indeed, an expressed humility of some may incline them to claim it is not their idea, but that they are merely a sort of transmitter. On the other hand, those who prefer to indulge in attempts to soothe an aching ego may infer, if not out-right state, that they were "chosen". Others may attempt to describe themselves with some variable derived between being a transmitter and being chosen. And still others think that it is more important to figure out how to "receive" more enlightened information; knowing well such knowledge may lead them along a corridor of experience that they become, metaphorically speaking, a very strange animal... requiring them to use a phrase such as "there is method to my madness".
However, while we can recognize the occasional out-cropping of an enlightened perspective in one or another individual, what would happen if everyone experienced a given fragment of a different or the same "level", "dimension", or "presence" of sanity? All of society might well be the scene viewed in a psychiatric ward before patients are given a pill to calm them... since so many people are overwhelmed by experiencing a level of sanity over the common place insanity defined as being normalcy... or sanity. Society at large, much less the public school system, does not train the public to remain tethered to the common reality while also encouraging an exploration into hyper or super sanity. This no doubt results in people using methods by which they can medicate themselves away from experiencing such fragments of enlightenment. They use drugs, promiscuity, crime, exercise, work, family matters, religion, alcohol, music, etc..., as a means of distracting themselves from such experiences... or even attempting to achieve an "enlightened" experience as described by someone else... not realizing that one person's presumed enlightened experience maybe commonplace to someone else. Others may well try to feign, or pretend an experience as a means of manipulating one or more others in order to achieve some physical, mental, emotional or other 'tangible' gratification such as money, property, etc...
Present forms of Democracy are psychological defense mechanisms. But so are present forms of religion and many other so-called "normal" perspectives. Some forms of so-called mental illness are defensive measures to protect a person from an otherwise hostile social environment that can not readily appreciate a person's alternative perspective. It is a perspective that Ronnie D. Laing might want to refer to, in some instances, as Super-sanity. So called "enlightened" perspectives derived from the usage of drugs, crowd frenzy, alcohol, excitement, fear, etc., should be noted as such. Clearly their are various perspectives to be achieved by way of artificial inducement... but do these actually constitute hyper or super-sanity? They might result in some compensatory quality of heightened awareness, such as a blind person's hearing becoming more acute, but are all heightened awarenesses an actual representation of an enlightened perspective? For the individual perhaps, and possibly for thousands of others, but is it of large social application? While we could wrestle philosophically with such comments for lengthy periods of time, let us resume the discussion about Democracy.
Let us generalize by saying that there are many forms of Super-sanity expression, some that can and others that may not be applicable in a given instance at a given moment. Many of which may not be apparently applicable to ideas concerned with developing an enlightened form of social self-governance. Applying fragments of enlightenment with a protest, such as in the case of those who joined in the "Occupy" movement, results in a fragmented protest effort... despite the sincerity of purpose to right a perceived wrong. But it was not one wrong which was being protested against. Their were numerous political agendas which were surfaced, but no singular objective was outlined and given direction to fortify the overall resolve. The fragments of enlightenment were like the assembled shards of glass (or plastic) in a hand-held Kaleidescope tube, with additional fragments merely providing different pictures... and little more than a temporary form of public entertainment. Regardless of the sincerity and seriousness of the intent, the fragments of experienced super-sanity fizzled into a commonplace understanding of accepted acknowledgment, without the public ever paying witness to a defined goal, the reasons for the goal, and the method by which the goal might be achieved.
The presently practiced form of Democracy is normalized insanity. And yes, there are many who have experienced fragments of perspectives which are more sane than the so called common-sense Democracy being used. To harbor such a fragment without some form of expression can drive you bonkers. It can make you so angry that you want to drop a bomb on Washington. But you must consider that some politicians, educators and others may have experienced the same, identical or at least similar enlightened view that you have. They just have learned how to not let such fragments control their lives. Such ideas do not become a preoccupation, but if they do, they may explore it in confidence with friends or trusted colleagues or even write a book about it. Just because you don't hear someone in your particular social group bringing up the same experience, doesn't mean others in other social groups are not. Your perspective may be multiple I.Q. points above every single person you encounter on a day to day basis in your particular social group or culture. In such circumstances, the rest of your perspectives need to explore larger horizons. Your present social experiences may be keeping you from other enlightened fragments.
While Cenocracy will one day be viewed as another step in a long line of "sanely described and practiced insanities", its adherents believe it to be an enlightened perspective beyond the present Democracy. But it must be kept in mind that it is a fragment. Other fragments from others will no doubt be added and inter-mixed, just as the American brand of Democracy is an accumulation of hyper-sanity fragments... that increasingly are becoming viewed as a repository of much nonsense because of its restrictions on a type of equality which is needed with a growing population. A formula for a greater level of Redistributed Equality is of pressing economic need. A Cenocratic social self-governance model will provide this.
The development of such an idea as "Cenocracy" has come by way of fragmented impressions that have materialized into an idea that still is being fashioned... just as all former social governing processes have likewise been formulated. But not all fragmented impressions, regardless of the subject area, become transferred from an impression into a projected image, whether it be on a canvas, piece of stone, cook book, motion picture, chalk board, music sheet, manuscript, internet page, or what have you. Many impressions of different sorts no doubt flitter away like some dream which does not recur often or intensely enough to become cemented into a lasting impression that one can copy and translate as best suits the medium of choice. Many fragments of talent, creativity and genius get lost, mixed or even mangled with other impressions that prevent a means of disassembling the combination in order to look at the singular fragment as a fledgling occurrence. Others realize that they are frequently susceptible to experiencing such images or impressions and seek a means of understanding how, when and where they can best enable themselves to improve their ability. And still others are rather envious because they think themselves rather devoid of such a trait. Instead, they listen to, watch for, and fine tune an ability to perceive fragments of others and then make use of them for a song, book, a painting or other social value... if only to entertain others during some social occasion. In one sense they are frauds and plagarists, and yet their efforts can make available what might otherwise be discarded for someone too timid or unpracticed to portray the imaged fragment themselves. Nonetheless, they should provide credit where credit is do.
Some fragments are turned into a joke as a means by which someone might avoid a social disparagement by another who might attempt to fulfill some need for uplifting themselves by knocking down that which, when first presented, is too immature to stand on its own as a developing idea. Far too many vulnerable fragments of truly would-be great ideas are no doubt lost because they are either presented too early, or at an inappropriate time and place. Sadly, very often without intending to do so, many of us engage in an expression, verbal or otherwise that is either misconstrued, or incorrectly addressed with the sensitivity and encouragement needed by the person having had the enlightened experience. However, some will even pretend to have had such an experience and expect to be treated with "kid gloves" as a means of getting someone to be more receptive to them. Indeed, there are those who are acutely aware of human behavior though have never worked in a psychiatric setting or social work field— They have an intuitive appreciation of human behavior that can not be taught in a classroom nor necessarily learned in a setting where a talent for working with disparate forms of human behavior is expected.
Both old and new ideas frequently are viewed from different vantage points. These vantage points may be short intercessionary moments that we might describe as fragments, when placed in context to other ideas a person may partake in during any given day. Such views, such fragments, may not materialize into a sentence or paragraph, much less an essay to be considered by others. Then again, with so much to read, a written text might not be discovered until some years after it was written. Some ideas are not truly merited to the extent they deserve. Those that encounter an idea may not be able to appreciate its value and discard it. Just as far too many people who like to throw things out without caring whether their assumed definition of junk is another person's treasure. They have no real sense of a larger public "self", and indulge in a singular form of self-centeredness, which may or may not include their immediate family, relatives, and neighbors. Their vantage point, meaning perspective, is what advantages them in the present, not what is or may be of advantage to oneself and others... including those of future ages.
Not to belabor a point, but Democracy is both an old and new idea. It has been practiced by way of a graduated scale of equality... and then regresses in other respects. For example, American citizens of a particular age are permitted to vote, even though it is quite evident that younger citizens quite frequently have a better grasp of social and political issues than some who have reached voting age and perform other registration requirements. Another example is the laughably absurd Electoral College situation for electing a President. A third example is to permit Elected officials in Congress to determine their own wage and benefits... whenever they choose to do so based on one or another rationale. The word "Equality" has a double- standard and then some. No doubt that if the people get a Cenocratic form of government, present officials want it to be tide to some provision which guarantees a greater redistribution of Equality in their direction. The people are permitted any measure of Equality so long as it is of a less quality than those who see Democracy, or any form of social governing formula, as a vehicle, as a tool, as a means of measuring out a greater value to themselves. They do not want equality because they see themselves as being superior... and are threatened by that which effectively disputes their claims and actions of authority. A Cenocracy is coming.
A psychoanalysis of Democracy with an underlying intent of exposing perspectives many people already acknowledge but may have not encountered in a short essay, and have a sincere interest in using the information less as a disparagement and more as an instructive tool to enhance social self-governing processes; might also agree that a similar psychoanalytic effort might well be applied to present religions and businesses.
On the other hand, a reader might indulge in a pseudo-psychoanalytic tri-partite approach as a means of attempting to grasp some superficial understanding of different religions from watching the news, watching movies or listening to hearsay invectives. They might ascertain that, for example, criminals in movies are more often depicted exhibiting some preference for Christianity... though this is from a Western Perspective that may not watch movies from other cultures. Such a perspective might also describe Judaism as going hand-in-hand with conflict, while those observing an Islamic fundamentalist orientation are confrontationistic. These of course are generalities, with the majority of those engaging in such beliefs, deserving little, if any descriptive representation thereof. No doubt different cultures have similar gradiations of interpretation of different cultures, as seen from the centrality of their predisposition.
Interestingly, if the same formula of interpretation is used in describing Buddhism, it is generally thought not so much as a religion but as a philosophy which some individuals attempt to contour into being viewed as a religion. Its adherents are widely seen as rather self-absorbed searchers of some purported "enlightenment" to be achieved by jumping through this or that hoop by this or that "Way". However, an explanation is rarely sought to explain why this "Philosogen" or "Religosophy" (Philosophy and Religion amalgamated into a single word), is centered around behavior requiring high levels of self-absorbed contemplations. The idea of a causal factor being related to a large population may or may not combined, though it would seem to be refuted when attempts are made to derive an explanation for its absence in other circumstances thought to exhibit high populations of people. Under such an event of analysis, the ideas of "concentration of people" (population density), culture/customs, terrain, diet, age of traditions, proximity to water, etc., might come to mind. And yet, we must further wonder why such an idea of "Enlightenment", or the ideas proposed by one or another religion, do not somehow come to the minds of humans no matter where they may originate. If an idea has little to do with where a person is than who they are, are we to consider that such a profound truth must be learned and is not an "awakening" of a particular type of consciousness whether brought about by some brain maturation or not?
With respect to Democracy, in terms of increasing Equality that some may want to describe simultaneously as being represented in the form of liberty and justice which prevails at a given time and place for a given people; why is it that there are different forms being practiced? And despite all the reasons posed as answers that a reader might want to offer, the question is meant to prepare the reader for adjusting to the realization that different variations of a Cenocracy born out of different variations of Democracy are already in the making. What has been lacking in Sociological and Political analysis is a label, a name to describe what is seen but not acutely acknowledged. It's like an amateur, or casual observer who watches the development of a butterfly without having a label for transitional stages of development. They pay witness to the changes, but have a grasp that has as yet not formulated a means of making a more detailed portrayal or understanding of a process. Though the amateur might be referred to as an expert, they are like some early herbalist and practitioner of the healing arts who is sought after to provide some pharmacological, medical, or surgical remedy.
A medical practice IS a Practice. Many people not only forget this but fail to appreciate that a Doctor is always in training. Though a physician may be viewed as a professional, their level of professionalism may be on the level of a novice for a given medical situation. Even presumed experts in a given specialty of medicine are practitioners. But the same can be said for every single profession... including those who are one's "professional" parents and may have been thought to hold all the answers, as seen through the ideas of a naive child. In short, what the reader may or may not encounter in a class room may well define what they believe or don't believe as a valid perspective. For example, in context, if you have never heard of the word "Cenocracy" and its growing perspective, it may be too rare of an occurrence for you to remember, since none of your favorite "experts" in their respective fields are not making mention of it. You may well consider it to be a fluke of perception, like noticing a snowflake falling alongside the ashes spewed out of a fireplace ... and to make mention of it might cause one or more others to doubt your ability to make such a distinction because none of your friends, relatives, co-workers or neighbors seem able to. But you did, and you are... now that you are aware of Cenocracy.
To think differently is like making a career choice. It is like saying not to friends who want to go out on friday night and you want to read. It is like asking a question in class knowing that the instructor might feel challenged and retaliate against you in some fashion... if not during the moment, than at some later time... such as giving you a lesser grade for a particular assignment than you know you deserve. It is like pretending to be ignorant about the workings of one's vehicle in order to see if a particular mechanic will be honest with you, and then letting them know why you won't let them work on your vehicle... after they have lied to you and try to cover up the lie with some heightened or excited voice obfuscation. Cenocracy is the incessant "Why"... can't we? to be used by the children of today who want to embark on a new age of discovery by way of developing a new form of social self-governance.
Some explorers of Cenocracy will be told by the so-called experts that all of society will suffer a great fall if it travels too far into the realm of Equality. Others will claim it as forbidden territory because it holds unspeakable uncertainties for which no tradition, religion or otherwise, has prepared us for. Still others will describe it as a waste-land, the very hell that the most terrible in hell are sequestered in... like a solitary confinement within a prison. And then by taking this as a cue, others might engage in an intellectual form of one-up-man-ship by describing the Cenocratic path as a hell within a hell within a hell... from which, once entered into, society can never return to its present wondrous state... whose inequalities afford them a greater share since they have learned to use them to their personal advantage. The so-called experts are unable to see the present forms of Democracy, as are all religions, mere way-stations to a better realization. It is difficult for them to make a detailed realization, much less an acknowledgment, without being provided a means of making the distinction. Like teaching a primitive to count a higher quantity by providing it with a word to be associated therewith, Cenocracy is a word to help humanity transition into a better form of social self-governance. Though the transition is taking place regardless of the recognition, the birthing can be assisted if those who are in a position to assist, have some rudimentary knowledge of the processes needed to occur. Cenocracy is like a new word being taught to those in Kindergarten and needs to be repeated and practiced from there on in all aspects of our lives. The word to those in Kindergarten is Sharing, to those in Society it is Equality.
Cenocracy is a new type of Equality which is a new type of Sharing. It is needed for a growing National and Global population. The usage of this Equality entails the adoption of a new form of social self-governance. Such a form of governance will ultimately alter all Religious philosophies. Although, no doubt, some will refuse to change and will make every effort to resist the adoption of a Cenocracy... no matter what they must destroy, or who they must kill; if their efforts to bribe, intimidate, coerce, cheat, steal or manipulate do not work.
An analysis of Democracy, regardless of one's preferred subject area, in light of a Cenocratic perspective; has barely begun...
Date of Creation: Friday, Nov. 21, 2014, 2:42:34 AM
Initial Posting Date: Thursday, November 27, 2014
Updated Posting: Monday, December 22, 2014