— Page 2 —
Put simply, the Christian Trinity is overlooked as an early Sociological formula describing three class distinctions.
| The Sociological dimensions of the Trinity (Analogous References) |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trinitarian "Class" Distinctions | Reference | Social Class Derivative | Reference | Early Indo-European social stratification identity |
| Father | [God] | Upper Class: | [Privileged, Our "Betters"... Leaders] | Those Who Pray |
| Son | [Teacher, Guide, Counselor, "Fighter" against the bad, wrong, unhealthy, unjust] | Middle Class: | [Professional, Entrepreneurial, Skilled Trades] | Those who Fight |
| Holy Spirit/Ghost | [Unseen "presence"] | Lower Class: | [Unseen/Overlooked poor, Indigent, Homeless, Unskilled/Temporary workers... Perturbation] | Those who Work |
(If a nobleman had three sons, one went to study in monastery, another went to fight in some battle as a knight, and the third took over the Estate.)
However, it is also necessary to note that these three "entities" are referred to as three persons in one Godhead. In other words, it is a three -to- one ratio, though we could likewise describe it as a three -in- one ratio. The usage of a quantitative distinction helps to remove emotional embellishments so that the influence of this particular "three" quantity might be more easily recognized as coming from the Sun's three "moments" (Dawn- Noon- Dusk), which are themselves three "essences" of the one Sun... an object which has been revered as a God and is claimed as having produced the idea of a "Sun" (Son) of God, from the perspective that the Sun is an eye of THE God who is thought to be transcendent over other gods... and was an important psychological article of early Jewish thinkers during an age of pantheonism polytheism, who (egotistically) promoted their God (and hence their beliefs), as being of foremost authority and thus reality; instead of just another type of imagination-laced (drug of choice) survival mechanism. In addition, it may be of value for some to note hat a Trinitarian concept is not explicitly Monotheistic. If we take a literal interpretation of the following three-patterned reference to God, it describes God as God alone unto him/her/itself:
Source: "Biblical Literature." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
If we accept the interpretation that God is God in a singular sense of self-referencing, and that this is a description of Monotheism, then the existence of different references to God is the practice of a type of Polytheism held over from a distant past. Even though we use the word "Monotheism" in describing a belief in a single, supreme God, all religions, when totaled, are actually practicing a modern day version of a pantheon of Gods with different attributes assigned to a single entity. If the acknowledgment of a single God is a single revelation shared amongst humanity, then this God is without need of separate definitions denoted as religions. However, such a realization may best be handled by a short excursion into the topic of "Pluriform monotheism":
The complicated relations that exist between monotheism and polytheism become clear when one considers pluriform monotheism, in which the various gods of the pantheon, without losing their independence, are at the same time considered to be manifestations of one and the same divine substance. Pluriform monotheism is one of the efforts to solve the problem of the coexistence of divine unity and divine pluriformity (multiplicity of forms), which was not recognized by an older generation of scholars, although part of the material was already available. It seems, indeed, that in many parts of the world and in many times religious thinkers have struggled with the perplexing problem of the unity and the pluriformity of the divine. The Nuer, a Nilotic pastoral people of the eastern Sudan, venerate a being called Kwoth, the Nuer term for “spirit” (also translated as “God”). He is considered to be the spirit in or of the sky. Like all spirits, Kwoth is invisible and omnipresent, but he manifests himself in a number of forms. Each of these manifestations bears a name of its own, but though they are addressed and treated as separate entities, they are essentially nothing but manifestations of the one spiritual being Kwoth and are themselves considered spirits and called kwoth. A sacrifice offered to one of these manifestations—e.g., a spirit of air, totem, or place—is not at the same time an offering to another, but all sacrifices, to whatever spirit they are offered, are sacrifices to the supreme Kwoth, or God. Nuer religion is certainly no clear monotheism as it is understood in the Bible and in the Qur?a-n (the sacred book of Islam), but neither is it polytheism in the popular sense of the word. (But) the case of the Nuer is not unique... Source: ["Monotheism." Encyclopae&lig;dia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.] |
The usage of the words "Communism", "Democracy", and "Socialism" though used by their adherents as being self-inclusive entities, are similarly being used to describe multiplicity of thought processing transposed from a past of polytheistic inclinations onto sociological considerations. There is a need to mix and match attributes of these (assumed) different social perspectives because humanity is still applying a poly... or multi-faceted orientation onto social circumstances. Similarly, though someone may think they are describing a single type of economics policy, they are in fact succumb to an unrecognized array of multiple actions entitled with a single label to give an impression of singular dominance.
With respect to viewing present practices of Communism, Democracy and Socialism as separate entities:
- Communism may be seen as promoting an unachievable type of Mono-model society
in its efforts to produce a "communal commonism" where some forms of mediocrity
are thus transformed by being defined as uniqueness... thus giving minor or
un-talented people an opportunity to achieve recognition because truly gifted
individuals are socially convinced they should defer their abilities to portray a
commonness... to be like everyone else because it is their civil duty to do so.
Hence, Communism is an exercise of Fictional characterizations.
- With respect to Democracy, its efforts to achieve a "Oneness", a Mono-model of
the best society, is very often described by (multiple) capitalistic enterprises
(occurring within a single society) involving an over-weighted value of money,
property or position, rendering some implied power that may never be truly described
outside individualized realms of idealism. Hence, Democracy is an exercise of indulged-in
Fantasys.
- As for Socialism, it strives for a Mono-model of indulgent Equality for everyone to be their best in terms of a shared equality that becomes its own arbitrator to a super-standard assessment of fairness and equitability to be adjudged as humility that is most important because it is defined as representing itself, and not that its actual practice is ever achieved. Simply saying so makes it so and therefore Is So, as a So-Soism is supposed to be. Hence, Socialism is an exercise of Fairy-tales.
While the above listings are charicatures, other models might be used to describe the multiplicity of nonsense humanity devises for itself as part of a complex of biological (attempts-at-survival) responses to a degrading planet, solar system and galaxy; that social systems reflect. Many models represent mechanical, biological or construction ideas. For example, a cell may be described as a factory, the planets work like a clock, or that a society is constructed by the scaffolding of laws. With respect to viewing society as a machine, its problems are though as fixable circumstances if we replace or rebuild the malfunctioning part. While models can be helpful to assist in some level of appreciation, they may not also describe the limitations of thought processing which force everybody to see activities within these same types of biological, mechanical or construction models. Quite often, ideas from physics are used to describe human situations that many may agree with, at least in a general way. For example, in the following image, people are said to be particles and the three aforementioned governing systems are seen as schematic lines represented in a model describing the interactions of waves:
Those with a multiplicity of interests may well utilize models from different subject areas in making comparisons as a methodology for trying to create conditions which might bring about a clearer (mono-single) representation that can be beneficially applied. However, for example, not only are economists addressing multi-faceted soci-economic considerations in their models, whatever those models may be, they are contributing to the causality and maintenance thereof in order to be able to apply their brand of singularly denoted multi-polistic ideology... much in the manner an ant-eater or any living thing seeks out a preferential diet. The usage of models is a type of intellectual snack that one may indulge in or prefer as part of a regular thinking diet that may be as simple as a checker board, a little more involved as a chess board, and much more abstract if different game pieces from different games (board or otherwise) are used. Nonetheless, without realizing it, the same underlying three-way (diagonal- horizontal- vertical) placement of the pieces may be kept and never considered as part of the overall schematic.
Mono-denoted poly-forms are mental patterns of dietary consumption like a chess player focused on a chess board. Most people do not actually have the ability to think in "mono" terms because this is a perception to be developed in accord with an evolutionary transition now underway... and will be that which promotes a Revolution because the transition may not be a smooth one. The ideas of humanity, are products of being a scatter-brained specious, like witnessing the hyper-vigilance of a watchful bird sitting atop a telephone pole. The mind of humanity is awash with both real and make-believe predators, of which God and the Judgment Day are an example thereof, though the government and businesses contribute to the list citizens are sometimes intentionally forced to be concerned about. To meet a person who is free from all fear is to witness a non-normal strange person.
An actual Monotheistic religion, like the practice of an actual Communism, Democracy or Socialism might be too frightening for a species of humanity not long removed from the wariness of proceeding onto the Savannah from an arboreal past to which smaller minds clung desperately to.
| The inter-related Sociological dimensions of the Sun, the Trinity and Society | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Solar "Moment" Classification | Reference | Trinitarian "Class" Distinctions | Reference | Social Class Derivative | Reference |
| Dawn | Giver of Life, Warmth, Safety, Security | Father | [Godly attributes] | Upper Class: | [Privileged, Our "Betters"... Leaders] |
| Noon | Mid-day, Mid "Way", Moderation, | Son | [Teacher, Guide, Counselor, (The Way, The Truth, The Life)] | Middle Class: | [Professional, Entrepreneurial, Trades, Skilled] |
| Dusk | Darkness, Uncertainty, "Something there" (Spirit/Ghostly, Shadowy presence) |
Holy Spirit Holy Ghost | [Unseen (Holy) "presence"] | Lower Class: | [Unseen/Overlooked poor, Indigent, Homeless... Perturbation] |
By establishing an inter-related commonality between the (three "persons" in one godhead) Trinity and Social class distinctions (which, by the way, are three classes in one society); we can look at other three-part structured ideas and find counter-part extensions involving a type of mental processing we humans engage in. For example, Sigmund Freud's Psycho-sexual divisions of ID, Ego, and Superego, if permitted to be appropriately matched up within a guideline of approximation... we might want to compare the Superego with the Father and the Upper Class; the Ego with the Son and the Middle Class; and the Id with the Holy Spirit/Ghost associated with the Lower Class. We should also note that the references associated with the "moments" of the Sun must be seen from the perspective of a primitive mind who paid witness to the "power" of the Sun-god, for thousands of years, and established this perspective as a fact of life to be transferred onto other ideas... many of which reflect a tripartite character.
By using categories such as religion, sociology, and psychology to stake claim to three-part ideas incorporated with the jargon of a specific subject area, we prejudice our ability to see an existing similarity because there is not current system of labeling or discussion which both encourages and gives permission for doing so. Because most people are followers, they need their unrealized fear(s) assuaged by a pronounced authority. Hence, let the present discussion be the authority, the precedent for allowing such considerations to take place, though you might want to alter the descriptions in order to give what you think is a greater clarity of shared relatedness.
But all in all, we are using words to describe the three-patterned ideas. Words are sounds and sounds require an ability to hear. So let us take a look at our means of hearing in order to point out a physiologically-based recurrence of a three- patterned orientation that some may want to conclude sets us up to be prejudiced towards the usage of such:
|
| |
| 3 overall divisions: | Outer ear~ Inner ear~ Middle ear |
| 3 middle ear divisions: | Tympanum~ Epitympanum~ Mastoid antrum |
| 3 eardrum membranes: | Cutaneum~ Collagen fibers~ Mucosm |
| 3 semi-circular canals: | Used for balance (equilibrium) |
| 3 bones: | (ossicular chain) Incus ~ Stapes ~ Malleus |
| 3 main malleus ligaments: | Anterior ~ Lateral ~ Superior |
| 3 incus anchorage points: | Malleus ~ Stapes ~ Bony fossa wall |
| 3 cochlea sections: | (Scala) Vestibuli ~ Tympani ~ Cochlear duct |
| 3 extrinsic muscles (Auricularis): | Anterior ~ Superior ~ Posterior |
| 3 sound conduction paths: | Electrical ~ Mechanical ~ Fluid or: Bone (solid) ~ Air (gas)~ Fluid (liquid) |
| 3 nerve stimulation paths: | Mechanical ~ Chemical ~ Electrical |
| 3 outer hair cell rows | typical in mammals but some sources give 3, 4, or 5 |
| Neurotrophin-3 (NT-3) is synthesized by inner and outer hair cells of the developing organ of Corti. | Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) is also synthesized. (Prestin is the motor protein of the outer hair cells.) |
| 3 sound qualities: | Pitch~ Volume (intensity)~ Tone |
| 3 sound wave propagation processes: | Diffraction ~ Transmission ~ Reflection |
| 3 main forms of ossicular chain fixation: | Fluid ~ Mechanical ~ Otosclerosis |
| 3 classes of ossicular lever action: | Force arm ~ Resistance arm ~ Fulcrum |
| 3 acoustic distortion forms: | Frequency ~ Phase ~ Amplitude |
| 3 basic properties of vibrating bodies: | Inertia ~ Elasticity ~ Dissipation |
| 3 principal types of deafness: | Conduction ~ Nerve ~ Stimulation |
| 3 types of hearing loss: | Conductive ~ Sensorineural ~ Mixed |
| 3 (inner ear) organs of balance: | Semicircular canals ~ Utricle ~ Saccule (collectively called the vestibular organ {3-in-1}) |
The usage of language is difficult without an ability to hear. Indeed, even language development may be due to how we hear, with respect to the three-patterned organization being used. And though we may not customarily suggest that a repetition predisposes us towards a particular prejudice, we should also uncustomarily define such a "prejudice" in a non-derogatory way, since it obviously has a survival advantage... even though such an advantage is only advantageous for a given time and context... otherwise it acts as a dead weight binding us to oars while the ship is sinking.
Three-patterned Ear structure, infant babbling, etc...
The German Economist and social thinker Max Weber (1864-1920) believed that many causes such as law, religion and politics combined with economics to determine the course for history. (Page 1325, The New American Desk Encyclopedia... 1980s reprint edition).
While he is given credit for such a suggestion, others no doubt may well have thought of the same combination but were not in a position to be quoted. History all too often gives examples of perception to those whose ideas may have come from someone in the general public. But if a pronounced expert is given credit for an idea, others are swayed to accept them as the originator and not a "common, everyday" person.
[Note: John A. Baum, in his "Montesquieu and Social Theory (1979)", names Montesquieu as a founder of sociology.]
Granted there are those who have details about Social functions that most people are not privy to, but such details may nonetheless be more common-place with increases in education. Though there are many others who provide their own theories, suffice it to say that many of the statements on this page are not necessarily new in and of themselves, but they are... in terms of promoting the need for a Cenocracy (New Government). While Sociologists and Historians speak of both old and present societies, they do not customarily talk about the application of ideas to the development of a new government. There are exceptions of course, but as a general statement, this review can be understood and appreciated. As such, most ideas simply want to change a given aspect of a social program or begin a new program within the extent practices of the government already in place. And though the idea of a Cenocracy (New Government) is a sociological idea, it harkens back to the early days of Sociological beginnings, when social thinkers actually thought that a study of society could bring about significant changes to improve our lives, as opposed to those who merely pose as Sociologists.
But suggesting that some people merely pose as a Sociologist poses problems itself. The word "posing" derived in the present sense from 'opposing', indicates a contrast that may not be easily recognized in today's world in which Sociology as the study of Society, has been segmented and fractionized so much so that those who pursue the subject as a profession, do so with the intent of specializing in a given area of interest. Yet, when Sociology is viewed as a single discipline, we can recognize that it has no central focus of addressing the overall structural functioning of society— in terms of the architecture of the government within which specialized areas of Sociology pretend to address. And pretend they do, albeit with intellectualized jargon and workplace nomenclature for insinuating an expertise with a preponderance of superfluous data that novice students are impressed with and flattered by if a mentor compliments them on their "attention to the details" of minutiae, that do more to conceal irrelevancy and promote a self-congratulatory adequacy of expended energies used as a measuring stick to justify a paycheck.
On one occasion of pointing out the rationale of present Sociology (diametric to the philosophy adhered to in days of old), an encounter with a student who was pursuing Sociology as their major academic interest... expressed the opinion that Soci-ology was primarily the study of society (as an anthropologist might), and was explicitly not an instrument to solve its problems... yet she was interested in solving the social problem of her own future employment by applying what she had learned. And on another occasion... a student with a similar academic vocation, said that social problems do not necessarily need to be solved, only managed... like a relationship one might imagine. Needless to say, both perspectives were highly disconcerting because it suggested that those who might well be the front-runners of Sociology in the future, were more interested in finding a nice cozy social niche' for themselves and not partake of any concerted inclination to improve the social situation of others in any particular social setting, much less the nation... if not elsewhere in the world.
Additional thoughts at the time reflected on the concern that our Universities had been turned into production lines that were spitting out carbon copies of automatons seeking out some small corner of society in which to scratch out a living, like a slave routinized to a particular task, albeit ones which required a college degree, but that could be filled by numerous others whose authenticity of reality approximated some modicum of applicable common sense. The entrepreneurial spirit of wanting to push society into a greater representation of human capabilities had been submerged beneath the waters of a falsified democracy providing delusions of personal grandeur propped up by proprietary patriotisms which spoon-fed illusions. Scores of educators are teaching subjects from the perspective of a person more interested in their own "me-ism" and the "us-ism" of the nation or the species is left in a cloak-room scribbled on a piece of paper forgotten in a coat pocket.
In speaking about the subject of Sociology, one necessarily confronts History that frequently exists because of some journalistic effort, though the practice of Journalism in one era may differ substantially with that of another. But this inter-twined association has helped to establish a given perspective whose practice promotes yet another prejudice of Democracy. Namely, the first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a list of prejudices, that, in the present case most are suspended from elaboration so that a specific point about "Freedom of the Press" may be cited: This particular selection invites the adopted opinion that the media has some peculiarly endowed Right to confront and question public figures, wherein those in authority hold "Press Conferences" but not "Public Conferences" in which the public can confront and question on its own behalf. A first Amendment "Freedom of the Press" Right has come to be practiced by those in the media as a law-binding entitlement to Represent the Public when neither the Independence Declaration, Constitution, nor the Public has conferred such an ability to journalists. Rights do not automatically confer an entitlement formulated by assertions contoured by the propriety of practiced indulgences.
The present Democratic Right to a "Freedom of the Press" as it is practiced, is a prejudice against the public... particularly noted as a censorship when it is acknowledged that there exist "media networks" owned by large organizations whose biases do not permit equal news coverage of all biases and will want to buttress its presumed propriety by claiming that public reports about the biased media are insensitive as well as tactless and should be censored because they were not first subjected to the filtered lens of the media!
Instead of the people being entitled with the practice of a "Public (or people) Conference" as a means of directly confronting and questioning public officials who are supposed to be answerable to the public; the people have to wade through the obstacles of vicarious forms of "Conferencing" such as:
- A worthless symbolic-functioning "Government Petition Process" where
"Government" is defined as the Executive Branch alone, because it is this branch
who takes it upon itself to determine when a public complaint is valid enough to
be shared with the other branches...
- Writing a caravan of letters to Legislators who assign the task of reading
to an assistant whose duties may be too numerous to give the people their full due
and deliberation because the Legislator is focused on their own pet interests that
the assistant must indulge in accordingly...
- Engaging in street-level protests that the media may not view as being important enough to mention, nor act as a channel of viable communication from the people to the government because it acts as a source of negative insinuation.
Here is a short excerpt from a much longer article about Sociology that is both helpful to those who are not too familiar with the subject and those who have not thought about Sociology as an intellectual discipline (or exercise) for many years:
|
Though sociology draws on the Western tradition of rational inquiry established by the ancient Greeks, it is specifically the offspring of 18th- and 19th-century philosophy and has been viewed, along with economics and political science, as a reaction against speculative philosophy and folklore. Consequently, sociology separated from moral philosophy to become a specialized discipline. While he is not credited with the founding of the discipline of sociology, French philosopher Auguste Comte is recognized for having coined the term sociology. The founders of sociology spent decades searching for the proper direction of the new discipline. They tried several highly divergent pathways, some driven by methods and contents borrowed from other sciences, others invented by the scholars themselves. To better view the various turns the discipline has taken, the development of sociology may be divided into four periods:
["Sociology." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.] |
This "Sociology" (study of society) and its attendant 'Sociologists' were, in the beginning, supremely sincere and hopeful that a scientific approach (particularly from the time of Auguste Comte's impetus of using a "Scientific Sociology") was the means by which humanity could unravel the source or sources of social problems. We of today might refer to this idea as searching for a "source-code", given our penchant for "borrowing" terms used in other research fields. Unfortunately as time wore on, and the answers to social problems have remained stubbornly elusive by using the assumed predictive methods of analysis... and were/are compounded by disagreements amongst the community of Sociologists themselves; Sociology has surrendered its premier edict of solving social problems to become a philosophically-based textbook preface of simply studying (and classifying) society... with the younger generations of Sociologists quite comfortable with this arrangement— given the fact there is no further burdening pressure to resolve large social problems... even though some may enter the field of Sociology with a genuine desire to follow the sentiment of C.W. Mills (1916 - 1962):
|
While at Columbia University, Mills promoted the idea that social scientists should not merely be disinterested observers engaged in research and theory but assert their social responsibility. He was concerned about the ethics of his sociological peers, feeling that they often failed to affirm moral leadership and thus surrendered their social responsibility and allowed special interests, or people lacking qualifications, to assume positions of leadership. ("Mills, C. Wright." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.) |
Agreeably, the field of Sociology would suffer greatly from membership if its primary tenet required someone to be an active participant in promoting effectively good social change...(Then again, we might have larger and more formidable protest groups.) It is well known that despite the sincerity of those studying Sociology, and those who seek out advanced degrees, not all of those who obtain a PhD. actually engage in original thinking. Creative thinking yes, but not actually original in terms of devising the argument for pursuing a new analytical approach or application... that is if this should be the criteria for which a PhD. is to be judged and awarded. While mastering someone else's idea may be laudable, like achieving the status of a master mechanic, electrician or plumber... it is quite rare for any of them to develop a new mechanical apparatus, electrical circuit, or system of plumbing. Likewise for efforts in Sociology or any other field of pursuit for that matter.
We have a lot of people compiling a lot of data in different fields, but the data is not being comprehensively applied. Too many researchers can't even get funding, because those who are put in charge of the funding allocation may not appreciate the relevance of a person's focused efforts. Imagine if Einstein had to wait on the approval of the Physic's community of his day before he wrote his ground-breaking ideas. He might have had to spend his life wearing long hair, sandals and a goatee, while living out of a VW (or yellow submarine) bus parked in a Walmart parking lot with an inscribed E = MC2 declaration set amidst psychodelic patterns on the front, sides and back; as he tries to sell copies of his Photo-electric effect, Brownian Movement and Relativity theories written on the backside of a "Will Work for Food" sign; while Hitler is a competing homeless person standing on an opposite corner attempting to sell samples of his architectural vision of the world on hand-drawn post cards.
Needless to say as an extended portrayal of the above metaphor: Democracy is prejudiced against the public encountering the discovery of alien concepts and ideas not in accord with its own application of a limited perception... set into practice. Yet, Democracy itself was an alien idea many centuries ago. So was Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and the use of fire for cooking. No less was the usage of gun powder, anti-biotics, and laws against child labor. New, (i.e. alien) ideas are frequently reacted to with skepticism or even fear, particularly when someone feels their own (insecurely held) ideas are being questioned...
For example, Socrates was accused of failing to acknowledge the gods recognized by the city, introducing other new divinities, and corrupting the young with his strange ideas. Jesus was called a false Messiah (Christ), Joan of Arc was called a heretic, King George (of England) and Hitler were both denoted madman, and many others are not recognized at all in their life time for some peculiarity of activity or insight... etc., etc., etc... In their own way, each was a genius, unless you prefer the usage of a word such as talented, gifted, creative or "divinely chosen"... and even though not all such 'geniuses' are recognized in their own time or if ever by their own people. On the other hand, just because someone is lucky or consistently good at a given activity does not make them a genius, nor talented, gifted or creative. If this were true, those who are proficient (don't get caught) at a given crime might be admired.
For example, just because someone has a "knack" for making money at a given enterprise does not necessarily mean we would describe them as being exceptional. Some people are best described as "ordinary" people who have been lucky (or unlucky) to be in a given place at a given time and made the best, or worse of prevailing circumstances. The word "genius", such as in the case of being applied to democracy, may be aligned with a personal definition of right or wrong... that is molded to an inclination for not thinking alternatively. However, how then would we characterize the notion of the Devil? If we portray "Evil" as a person, is it a genius? If we place high value on evil, than gradient distinctions thereof may be important. Yet, for that matter, is "good" a genius, or be highly valued and use a word such as "miracle to substitute for 'genius'? Necessarily so, interpretations and definitions can thus prove to be problematic if they are rendered as personal descriptions similar to how one thinks what is beauty and truth. Nonetheless, we humans make such distinctions. Establishing a contrast can promote the development of improvement.
But claiming that Democracy is prejudiced against itself, is not enough. One must offer examples as well as promote an idea which will dispell the ugliness created by the distinction. The crudeness, the immaturity, the novice-ness of democracy must be replaced by refinement, maturity and experience... unless it is inherently unable to do so. Though it has prospered, it may nonetheless represent an anomaly... a mutation whose viability beyond itself is only more of the same horizontal growth pattern... like a suffocating weed that must be made into a compost for a better government to be spawned.
Being an expert is no guarantee that they can recognize ideas superior to their own, or prefer to support those according to some personalized social interest. The further ahead one is of their time, the more difficult it is for them to be understood, particularly by those in the present whose ideas are planted in an antiquity, yet they are labeled as the authority of today.
Most people spend their entire lives trying to find their niche' within one or another social box... even those who may view themselves as being anti-social or those identifying themselves with some criminal element. While jail or prison may be boxes some people are forced into, they are still boxes. Recognizing the existence of a box, describing it, and perhaps even suggesting a means to improve it (or destroy it), are different exercises that are not always as entrepreneurially enterprising as one may want to think. As such, we Cenocrats don't need to know or say everything about every single social problem. But we do need to encourage and support those who know more but may be too reluctant to assert themselves to apply their knowledge usefully. It's of little value to have a 200+ I.Q. if all that is done with it is to play some stupid syllogistic game found in a newspaper or attend Mensa gatherings where the only action is a consensus to take no action, or engage in conversations where the language is so intellectually lofted because they are defenses for insecurities, that most people can't intelligibly reach to achieve a reliable commonality of understanding. This is not intelligence... this is cowardice and ignorance.
The very fact that a legislative amendment process exists is an indication that mistakes are made and that many mistakes are corrected... but not all of them are. One of which is the overall practice of Democracy itself, and that this practice is keenly prejudicial— against itself, through limitations it imposes on the population at large. In some instances the prejudice is indistinguishable from the originating religious ideology and at other times it is reflexively provoked into being by way of experienced circumstances. Nonetheless, it persists as a reality and we must avail ourselves of the right to intervene on our own behalf... by first becoming aware of its existence. While some may agree that present practices of Democracy can be wrong, they don't view it as a prejudice that violates the Civil Right to be free from such Discrimination... all because it is not listed in any present government document about Civil Rights. Such an idea must become "politically correct" to think about it and pursue courses of action to break the chain of influencing agents. To do so, and I fully admit the present task is a general one, we must examine a variety of ideas.
With respect to Civil Rights, some people are not aware of any violation because they are brought up thinking a social act is normal, natural and logical. For example, the exclusion of a Voting Right to Women, Blacks (slaves), Native Americans, and non-property owning white men, was once considered a proper idea that made common sense... at least with respect to preventing oppositional protests. But such a view was later found to be particularly ridiculous. The same type of common sense amongst governing authority was exhibited in the relocation of Native Americans to areas of land where living standards were intolerable, but to resist such relocations meant one was in violation of law. The Native Americans were forced to accept living between the proverbial rock and a hard place due to government Imperialism. And for a third example, let us mention the American Civil Rights movement for Black peoples who simply wanted to share in the same level of equality that everyone else was entitled to. Yet even today there are those who think that Blacks are not deserving of Equality because in one way or another they represent some assumed inferiority. Unfortunately, though one might want to think that a recurrence of authoritative discriminations would make the public more vigilant and insistent about its Civil Rights; it is once again overlooking an authoritative act of widespread discrimination against the people by depriving us of having the dominant voice in our democratic self-governance. The absence of a definable necessity of liberty is the practice of a discriminatory equality violating a Civil Right affecting all peoples everywhere with a level of prejudice that can not be tolerated. The "People" in a 'Peoples Government' is not to be defined by a practiced process for excluding the majority so that the Will of a few has the majority of opinion and power of overall governance.
|
However, it is a mistake to deduce the remark of a "true equality" with the notion of a traditionalized egalitarianism, when inequalities amongst individuals of a species and between species' are not equal; particularly when the notion of equality is based upon arbitrary definitions that may themselves be altered by any individual from time to time or place to place. For example, though a group of people can agree to label an apple red, the sky blue and grass as being the color green... this does not mean there exists an equal measure of "redness", "blueness", and "greeness" amongst everyone. Equality is reserved as a defined generality of applied specification. Though color-blind people may not see one or more of these colors, they simply go along with this deduction that is presented by a few as the unofficial consensus of the many. Differences of opinion can none-the-less exist. Though the quality of having an ambivalent characteristic may be equal in terms of mere existing as a phenomena, the type and degree of ambivalence can vary widely. A true equality may be an unrealistic possibility without recourse to some notion of perfect reflection, but we can design a form of governance which limits the larger impact and smaller effects of artificially induced environments— or acts within prevailing circumstances, that create or deepens inequalities as are measured in a given context. The present governing systems are practicing prejudicial equalities that favor a few over the many, the rich over the poor, and other segments of society cast into different formulas of debilitating contrast.
Note: During the French Revolution, about 98% of the people ("commons") were represented by the "Third Estate" who could be out-voted by the other two bodies of government. (The other two were the nobility and the clergy.) Today, the majority of the people are said to be "Represented" by Legislators, yet the people have no set-in-place mandated convention to either discuss or vote on concerns in which to produce a notice of our Collective Will so that "Representation" will honestly reflect actual Representation of the people. The French people wanted equal Representation just as the people of today are in dire need of. Comparatively, the French people also wanted to abolish the "noble veto", just as the people of today are in need of obtaining an equal provision of veto power and the Right to have an equal stake in the Checks and Balances formula (though some believe the Collective Will of the Public should have the dominant "tie breaker" provision in any and all circumstances). [The people of France demanded to share the sovereignty of the nation with the Crown: History Today] As in so many cases, Revolution, or pre-Revolution involves conflicts about voting ability... that is, a Civil Right to practice a share equality. We of the present are being confronted with the same situation.
However, let us not overlook that the actions of Revolutionaries very often resemble those who fail to remember the past and repeat history... if not in functionality of exercised assertions then the after-math of their attempts to facilitate the development of a government within make-shift guidelines which are ill-prepared to deal with multiple expressions of new-found freedoms being explored by those advancing their own interests simultaneously. If the Cenocratic Revolution is to engage in an "Enlightened" approach at making productive governmental (social) reforms by way of a new governing practice, we must be mindful of this realization. To this end, let's take a look at history from which can be procured a reference between the "Governing State" and the common throng that those of the late "Occupy" movement exhibited to the public... despite the group's overall sincere aims at producing social reforms... even if there was no explicit ideology that was publicly visible:
From Alexander Pope's "The First Epistle From The First Book Of Horace": Lines 120 to 123:
 Well, if a king's a lion, at the least The people are a many-headed beast. Can they direct what measures to pursue, Who know themselves so little what to do? |
Note: The line: "The people are a many-headed beast" was a term used by Socrates in Plato's Republic.
Date of initial Creation: Sunday, December 13, 2015 3:03 AM
Date of initial Posting: Saturday, 16-Jan-2016... 02:08 PM
Updated Posting: Tuesday, 29-Mar-2016... 12:20 PM