|
QuoTinG dLiberation "But this is Europe, the birthplace of democracy - a continent now (bar the aberration of Belarus) made up entirely of democratic states, where universal suffrage is the rule, where democracy is considered not just as the best form of government, but as a fundamental right. How then can this apply to the EU whose legislation is replacing many of the laws that used to be passed by national governments? Is it write to talk about “the will of the people”, the central idea underlying democratic systems since the days of Solon of Athens two and a half millennia ago, when there are many peoples? Today we understand democracy as a constitutional law-based system with fair voting, a system that prevents the tyranny of the majority and protects the fundamental rights of individuals and minorities.
Article on “Generation Binding S’ilence” :: New Global
Democracy Formula hollland , 00 / V :: Concluding Article “Shift in Voting ::
Democracy Catalyst”
( here the concluding article out of a narration following analysis construct ) Since Building
this article with the originator in order to reveal the mechanism to the people,
let us pass the questions: ·
Why do we need this? ·
What thought emerged this? ·
Where do we, the people, gain
from it? ·
How do we implement it, ·
or before that, how do we
convince one another on the pivotal esteem? ·
Can you tell us about some
refinements? Why do we, people of a nation, need this?
I
spectate this world and the competition at vast scales beyond the human personal mind that
pulses into all our lives, in all our nations = nations that I see as clusters
of individuals living in a sort of controlled area, intentionally self-managing,
maintaining, sustaining the standards of their people. Now, in those years we
seem to be in a kind of harness that
doesnot resonate the human creative friction we somehow suppose as general human fundaments. Let me share a
comment of Jan Roelofs, a partner working in my learningspace iGovernance &
iPolitics (i=integral). He quoted an article about religare groups recognized
in an investigation in the Netherlands 2006 – just before the november 2006 elections.
The largest group is 26 percent of people, individuals, who quest their own
individual spirituality … So this group is not represented by any political
party. I can be an option to think that
those people do not affirm the system we live in anymore! Do you reader read me, here right now? Okay, I know I am
drawing a quick however very strong line if you see it from the side of a
booming trendline. Do the
notions of mr. Ken Wilber in Boomeritis synchronize with those trends? Is there
the thought that he is in favour with the city of And to be
clear from my personal engagement isn’t that right in the middle of the Rose
where I live with my public company Waternet , where the elite positions the
company as a water-cycle service company serving waste, surface and drinking water and I propose to them to
make it an integrated water-cycle service company where the human factor is
fully implemented in the focus of the wisdom
board? What thought emerged this?
Let me
first draft the circumstance that sort of struck my life in the time that an idea
entered my visional mind. By occasion I was
employed with BSO/Origin, a former dutch information and software company, and
just a year after visiting Frances Bicentennial in 1989, I was asked to co-member my political party in the local
council. So, what am I saying here … my open mind was in a sort of creative
friction with History, Democracy and Technology. So, what
thought emerged the awareness of Shift in Voting :: Democracy Catalyst? I was
living in 3 worlds, and in the same period I experienced all kind of communication chaos
with my fellow humans :: sort of loosing
my communication (fibres)… I
investigated this all the time relying on my strong beliefs … I even noted down
a list of 12 persons that “deserved” my full trust … and every now and then I
replaced one by another one = think, confirming my self-development. So I was
all the time practising a new kind of “voting”, which is in my strong belief a
core for decision making for all humans
partaking the “world order”, the spaceship “earth”. Simple
start for the vision was the thought : can everyone get 20 points to assign to a
selection of at least 3 individuals that gain by my decision my trust to be in
a fruitfull team on political interests. My selection, and the ability to
change that selection at any time, should set my focus on the playgrounds of
local politics and exercise my brainframe on global affairs. An illustration document on (collective) decision making qoutated: “Can two decisions that contradict each
other both be good.? Surprising
as it may seem the answer is - Yes. The
reason is simple: different patients have different priorities; some prefer life with disability to death, while others prefer death to life with disability. Both decisions are Good
for those who made them, as they are determined by different priorities, not by
facts, knowledge or logic. Different people have different priorities, and there is no absolute priority
enabling us to grade all priorities. How
does all this relate to politics? Is
politics about decisions or about conclusions? Do
politicians decide policy or conclude policy? In
politics people vote. Voting is choosing. To choose is to prefer. People decide what to prefer. Anyone deciding policy - King, Dictator, President, Prime Minister, Leader, or ordinary
citizen - chooses one option from a number of options. We cannot choose a conclusion. Answering What to do? is always a decision, never a conclusion. Decisions
are determined by priorities, not by data, knowledge or reasoning. The same facts, knowledge,
and logic, can lead to different decisions due to different priorities. Politics
is decisions, not conclusions. We decide political issues. We do not conclude them. Those who make a decision are responsible for its results as they could make a different decision
(motivated by a different priority) and get different results. Politicians whose decisions produce undesirable results usually try to evade their responsibility
for such results by saying I had no choice pretending their decisions were conclusions. But they voted. Voting is choosing. One cannot choose a conclusion.“ So, the individual conclusion “ICH HABE ES NICHT GEWUSST” may
be a notice of lack : lack of an appropriate methodology (system), and
thereby systematically promoting public ignorance. Where do we, the people, gain from this new
kind of thinking?
Honestly,
I could not say that or proof the gain for a long time … Since
december 2000 there a pivot happened: the magazine Ode organized an event where
the Treaty of Bretton Woods was challenged to “our time”. At that
event an open space conference breeded the term “generation binding”. The term
S’ilence is recently attached to those 2 words, replacing the modern science
term Matrix. Let me share another Wilberian Type Quadrant private investigation: human
sense fields (by cosmic resonance)
analogue
to the basic perspectives :
analogue
to the public functionalities :
I do not
say this is the truth, but it is a way of seeing & sensing a truth … I sense
this can be a perception on general truth … The
5th Verb that reverberates is the verb :: force “Heal”
:: lightning …
which resonates on … “Speak”
:: sounding this verb
is like the thumb orchestring the 4 fingers (the Quadrant) … they are
all true and whole partakers in a field of cooperation. Now, back
to the question … I see and cannot think alone … So,
cooperating we, the people, accept our thinking as the new kind of human rising
NOW. And
the philosophic notice may be we
got beyond Descartes
“I think, so : I am” ;-) :: ( Heal :: See – Feel – Touch – Think :: Speak ) (can
you please think about this while seeing your world through our eyes?) How do we implement it, or before that, how
do we convince one another on the pivotal esteem?
Convince? I donot
sense the effect of convincing, I’ld
rather stick to the word mr. Peter Merry (center for human emergence – the SYNNERVATE (just g**gle it). Then, how
do we implement it :: have an international debate on this subject calling all
stations to subscribe a
global joint venture project and facilitate the PEOPLES DIALOGUE . In the
meantime we get on building the tools just accepting the rough draftlines as
they are and bring it up. Not only as a paradigm for election procedures at
nation or local community scale but also on schools and universities and big companies. do you
get the picture, pivoting all objections to the projects advantage? Can you tell us about some refinements?
Okay, I
will tell some: 1.
at a generation phase (consider
life generally split up in 13x7 yearzones) each human has a budget for voting
on the national and the local scale, and to that provisionally on the global
scale. 2.
Each phase specific budget sticks
to the rules that a maximum of 50 percent of the budget may be assigned to the
personal favourite votee (term replaces the word public representative or
candidate on political issues). Meaning, everyone gets used to bring up a team
that cooperates in the common field of dialogue ; say debate when the decisions
are mutually made. 3.
A voter cannot be a Votee, and
vice versa … 4.
The generation approach defines
the act of the Votee to be recommendable for all humans, may I say here the
working class. So the kind of work the Votee does, i.e. loosing his job and
being available a a public servant, is the ideal situation for all people.
Reality says that only 5 percent of the people assign their talents on that
exposure. 5.
This system is built upon the
requirement that the system works (why not?). So, at the end of a lifetime each
Voter has the same budget on Voting as the Votee = which is defined as ZERO
POINTS (you
vote by acting mutual). 6.
The refinement conclusion is, if
I may say this, an act in the line of Praise of Folly, a short story on life by
Desiderius Erasmus, it is about Dying, about being in the Fire. So, to all
those Votees we, the people say, you are my destiny in the sense of being in
the Fire without False Measure (=Voting & Learning to Manage). 7.
While every Voter can maintain
the personal budget on the fly of life, it may be of our notice that s/he is
less drifting on mediation just before an election Day. So, is this an
advantage or is this a disadvantage regarding the seriousness of the
communities truth and authenticity? (let my 7th refinement be a quest, okay!) 8.
Last refinement here, can be the
quest on worldcitizen forum where one is investigating a global democracy and
an instrument that guides all involved in a profound dynamic flow including
synchronisation points as decisions are. Let me drop two options in this
broadcasting article: a.
this GBS’ilence paradigm
describing an alternative for national and local elections replacing the old
one, one man one vote, can be a fundament for the Global Core Election by
splitting the budget in 2 parts: at most 50 percent of the budget may be
attached to fellow country votees; and there is no restriction to the
percentage given to outer country votees. b.
another approach given the
GBS’ilence fundament can be the collective GBS’vote. A definition of a
collective GBS’vote can be that the collective is a group of 5 (transnational)
individuals that interacts willingly for at least 1 year in a sort of harmonic.
Only group budgets can account in the Global Election Core. Any worldcitizen is
free to arrange a group that can be authentified. ( a rough and fresh idea :) Is this now at the start of year 2007 the
right time to shift from the old to the new method?
To me,
this is the right time ; and really I did not even wait for this moment to come
… I live
this (hell of a) life … may I invite you to breath it in and out again and
again?
short
note on the design beyond the article / conclusion to my
readers :: author cees de groot / worldcitizen (germspot holland) this article is widened serving readers planetary vast
and various addresses; which does not serve comfort for those who are aiming
for the articles focus. overcoming this the author suggests to enter on next
sequence as a shortcut: first step: 00 / V … second step: I-IV (10-13) … final
context: 0-13 & 00 again (I see this structure as a way of Building Our Bridge Together – lined up by/as a ROPEY ) 00 / V ::
Concluding Article “Shift in Voting :: Democracy Catalyst” 7 :: attunement
& communication 10 / I ::
manifestation & history 11 / II ::
liberation & digestion 12 / III ::
cooperation & learning 13 / IV ::
presence & dynamics 00 / V ::
Concluding Article “Shift in Voting :: Democracy Catalyst” Why do we,
people of a nation, need this? Where do we,
the people, gain from this new kind of thinking? How do we
implement it, or before that, how do we convince one another on the pivotal
esteem? Can you tell us
about some refinements? Is this now at
the start of year 2007 the right time to shift from the old to the new method? 0 :: preface
Author got a new vision on how to instrumentalize
election procedures where masses of partakers as citizen in a democracy sphere
decide upon their representatives in the collective core in a sensible way,
i.e. in a way that builds democracy and their partaking members in a way that
combines both inner pillars and outer buttresses (taking a cathedral
construction as metaphor). Where the inner pillars are the partaking members of
society, the outer pillars are the universal forces that unify through time and
space. The latter will be in more detail expressed in this article. And if the
reader senses this as not being articulated sufficiently, please notify your
notification or question to s.ace@orange.nl
. In order to enable a public entrance the article,
attached to the more complex to comprehend design objectives and building blocks,
is both in front and in the backstage of this document as a whole. Consider the
document as just the “concluding article on a new way of collective citizen
relationship, previously known as the election procedure”, where the
buildingblocks 0 prefaces the whole and guides the reader and the blocks 1 to
13 are added for those who deepdrill from the article to fundamentals “hidden”,
cq. to be clarified in conversation with the author. Some historic data that chronicles this adventure:
The core of this article is the sphere were people and
state / global affairs meet in the decisional position that every now and then
comes up in the co-creative mutual sphere of living together. 0.1 definitions
some definitions on terms may clarify our mutual
understanding
1 :: purpose & destiny
In the decisional position every partaker, say here
citizen, needs exercise to grow in the most complex situation that merges
towards a new vision contributing the solution for the better life. History review leads to the conclusion, often heard,
that man did not learn much in the last 5000 years. How come? Or skip this queest for a better understanding in this
article onwards? When reading this article please take notion of the
fact of life that if a human gets 20 currency units to buy 3 products, s/he will
succeed; if s/he gets the budget of 100 units s/he will managed to buy at least
11 products. Keep this general human skill in mind as deliberation factor. 2 :: challenge & work
Each new situation that occurs needs a fresh viewpoint
in order to communicate the “thing”. To communicate the thing it needs some patience to
gather data and structure it to mutual consumable information. The work to be done is, as we can agree upon shortly [1],
a working on 4 perspective fields :: I –
IT – ITS – WE ; more pronounced with the labels BEHAVIOURAL – PHYSICAL –
SOCIETAL – CULTURAL. The context where this perspectives facilitate the
dialogue is the field of dialogue, the interrelational core where the situation
to be communicated arises. Mostly the problem is te be solved in the ITS
quadrant. Here the individual work seems to be served by the
open mind on the I-quadrant; on the digestive skills to disolve the physical,
the IT-quadrant. On the collective core the work is served by the idea that the
collective individuals, the WE, gathered co-operate in the centered space where
they all unite. This may be propagated by several tools and skills that all
individuals accept and learn, such as group meditations to set the
centersphere. May it be clarified that a Work Process can only be of
sense if it Works for all participants. It can also be stated that where it is often taken for
granted to accept the previous situation as a starting point for negotiations,
it can also be agreed upon that the situation before was due to mismanaged
politics or power systems mutually regretted that they occurred on pain. 3 :: service & devotion
In this design for a new peoples structure and dynamic
on how to live in a (better, profound) world, we will see that equality is not
a universal principle at the same moment to the same individual. In the core of
this article, i.e. the voting system as a democracy building vehicle, we have
to forget about the idea brought into peoples mind by the one-man-one-vote
mechanism. Although it optically seems a very equal situation to all
participants to get them on the political decision core by selecting a
representative, seeing more to it from an analysis of the decisional moment …
each individual voter was just provoked to force and cut personal favourite
options to a dogmatic choice of one person. And at the same time the Statistical
mass of all people should do the teamwork selection for the coalition cut. So the new system builds on equality seen on a
lifetime of 13x7 years, where all citizen are equally treated regarding the
election, the decision making core. One will see this later arising in some
drafts. 4 :: form & construction
In constructing a mutual maze that makes sense in the
organic core where humans coexist, the design of the new paradigm builds blocks
of 7 years (and 7 levels) as a generational phase in life. Although those
phases may not be exact in line with the human living a life, those blocks all
together form a maze that leads the way onward simply as steps on a stairway up
or downwards. Constructing the new paradigm we have learned that it
is a decision in life to step forward and enter the representative core present
as a candidate for other ones to speak for them. In the new paradigm,
Generation Binding Silence – GBS** - we agree upon the terms Voter and Votee.
This combined with the procedural rule that in an election procedure one can be
only a Voter or a Votee. (notice the difference with the worldwide known One-Man-One-Vote
that gives us television shots of candidates voting – for themselves) A 7 steps up and downwards “temple” gives people the
mirror of life integrated in a vivid democracy interrelation communication
channel. On the metalevel this combines the formula of light, 7, and of sound,
13. 5 :: radiance & splendor
Ancient Civilizations, often visited nowadays on a
holiday tour enrichening the spiritual questing crowds dreaming their way back
“in a hurry”, inspire individuals deeply. The radiance of history overwhelms and illustrates the
splendour for what human specie can achieve when working together. In this regard we often forget the circumstances how
the builders of those monuments lived in their time … uncomfortable and
questionable on the human standards of living we “westerns” mediate as our
nationwide normative. Nevertheless, sensing the sparkling signals revelate
the human mind every now and then as wonders to live for in peace and harmony. The radiance can be sensed as an ever healing vortex
energizing the body; as a voice reverberating the body mind anytime speaking or
singing and even whistling through the field of silence. 6 :: equality & eternity
The essence of equality has to be in the GBS
responding to the gift of universal eternity which needs no human interference. The gift of the Votee is therefore taken as the goal
for each voter to reach in a lifetime: live the life on the act of presence and
accept the role not to vote in the societal political election event. While
this rule is within the system where all people as citizen partake in their up
most collective contribution we can see the passing through of learning power
from generation to generation. The flow of life takes over the lead of community
hood. 7 :: attunement & communication
A pivot in the decisional moment is the awareness of
each human partaking as a Voter (or Votee) that is caused through the
implementation of this system will be: the quadrant sense of governance ;
governance sense against respectively dialogue, politics, democracy. Next to this Quadrant 2 references to Ken Wilber
Quadrants facilitate this communication and understanding.
Simply 4 perspectives that can be understood in
society contxt as
When we look at the context of domains, we see:
Here the functional includes the projectional and
instrumental human skills. The relation quadrant merges by natural and implicit
intelligent invitation mind, body and function spheres to the open
communication realms and to the mutual quality level achievable in the
abundance given. On the decisional core of organisation we can rely on:
All 4 Quadrants are here in line with one another,
training the mindset of participants in a constructive collective construction
of a new way of dealing with mass, meshes and entropy. So Governance is the stage where each individual acts
from the consciouslevel where s/he performs the best skills as a voter or as a
votee. It can be agreed upon that getting to the higher self
stage of decision making on the governance core needs exercise. Therefore the
GBS also implements the election event as a permanent show. Caution: this
permanent show may not be permanent on the output side of the whole. So polls
out of the, now permanent, base will only be available on a wider maze, say
each month or each quarter. At the outcome side of shifts in peoples confidence
in votees, ministres, congresman and other spokesman in the political arena we
must agree upon the sphere that the system is not interfering in the formulae
of power but preferred over that is: facilitating the communicational mutual
signals to voters and votees. This all facilitating the attunement of the
articulations on matters that arise. 8 :: integrity & harmonic
If we draft a scheme of the GBS voting paradigm and
mirror it to itself, the picture gives a thing as:
This draft combines a colour system practised by Mr.
Don Beck on the theories of Mr. Graves on evolutionary spirals alive and
coexisting through our communities, where the turquoise field implies the
`whole view` and the other colours build from the middle one, the beige,
through all coexisting stages. More of this can be studied elsewhere using
keywords SDi , Spiral Dynamics integral and Beck. In this article this model overlaps the election mode
designed and regarded here right in this article. 9 :: intention & valuesystem
This draft both describes the intention &
valuesystem of human living state and planetwise. How? Consider the bottom line a the survival sensed stage
where we start getting used to our bodies and either feed it to survive the
environment or, at elder age, get beyond the body by accepting the starvation
that will come along. The 5 colours purple, red, blue, orange and green
represent other evolutionary stages in human cultures all over the planet. Some
may not have been visible in some countries or spheres dominated. The 2 colours yellow and turquoise represent the
ecological and the whole view stage that can be seen as the mature one, we
human beings as citizens all are striving for to learn. The system describes the yellow as the local stage
where the human lives, and the turquoise stage where the human works. If you
reader like to change those verbs, live and work, feel free to do so because at
the end of this article you may digest to the conclusion it is all the same
within the context of co-operating the planetary sphere: it is both intention
and valuesystem while evoluting as human being(s). 10 / I :: manifestation & history
In order to make the changed perception on the
election core of democracy spheres clear, some things are to be viewed. First lets again seen the One Man One Vote formula
that from a room with some guys deciding promoted to country spheres where a
whole population decides on which representatives may take the lead on speech.
(each block represents a generation stage in life of 7 years) The given draft represents the One Man One Vote
formula where Grey means the particular Generation has No Vote Right and Red implies
Generation has a Vote Right by assigning one vote in 4 years to one party, one
candidate. The blank generation from 15 to 21 years of age
represents the “gap” where some humans start at 18 years to vote and other ones
at 21 years, this due to the electionfrequency of 4 years. Stepping out of the Box one rises questions as : Is it wise in the global community to outcast so many
young people from the election core? Is there any lesson in the voting system while growing
older to wise elder? Is a election calculation system only tested once a
day in four years? ~~~ Do you
feel invited to be initiated in the new graph?
The yellow colours stand for the local election
procedure, which is similar as the nationwide one that is described below
except for the beginning, which is 7 years earlier, for the ending , which is 7
years later, and for the mid, which is the dissonant that brings in the Erasmus
factor, the wise crux “the praise of folly”
as a systematic, on the human contemplative level a humoresque and digesting,
advantage. The turquoise colours resonate on the theories of
Clare Graves Spiral Dynamics where this colour signals the “whole view”, the
“integral worldview on mankind and relationships” as the author here prefers to
articulate this signal: So what does it mean when a human becomes 15 years of
age (3th generation state)? S/he gets a budget of 20 points to share in the
political decision core and at the same time on the individual citizen
educational core as integral partaker. This sharing means that 20 point are assigned to at
least 3 Votees. The favourite Votee gets a maximum of 50 % of the voters
budget. What does this mean? Consider the situation that a man giving 1 point to
another one in the old paradigm … What happens? The voter gives his political soul to the single Votee,
and single political party. Now, in this new design, considering the assignment to
a team of personal preferred singles, what happens? The voter places the higher self in the kernel of this
team(!), relating the own stand to the votees chozen in a differentiated
teamwork. Examples of 100% fulfilled votings out of a 20 points
pocket budget are:
The upper shows a voter having 1 favourite candiate,
the second one has two equivalent candidates, the third row shows a voter who
manages to bring up a team of 4 and the fourth one of 5 equivalent candidates. For the first time reader this may seem complex,
however if we refer to the story of a consumer buying some, say 3, products for
say 20 euro … then this new procedure can be accepted in due time. Agreed? For the next generations to come and the more detailed
description of how this can be digested as a working system, see 11 / I ::
liberation. The new way of voting is available on any moment that
arises to a voter to maintain his personal budget, or political team of singles
working together. Here it needs to be said that this availability option refers
to the Input side of the Voting Bank; how to handle the Outcome o, the Poll, of
this new way of maintaining the political bindings and unbinding on some kind
of a frequency base depends upon the collective agreement (month/quarter/year). 11 / II :: liberation & digestion
The graph of the new election core shows two main
lines …
1. in
4 steps (C2-F7) a human raises in 29 years from a 20 points budget to a 100
points budget 2. in
5 steps (F7-A13) a human dissolves in 36 years from a 100 points budget to a 0
point budget This needs some narrations and understanding of life,
of the cultural, the societal, the dialogue and the governance perspectives. The first context of raising in the budget for the
electional core seems reasonable because of the natural flow of a learning life
where man manages to get about in complexity. He learns the priorities to be
set in the individual core, and family or network attached he learns to
co-operate in missions or projects. So at the top level he manages to share 100
points to a minimum of 11 Votees. ‘) The second context of loosing budget is in fact the
reason why this system liberates human world citizens as a whole organism and
digests collaboration for each human. Let’s narrate on the meaning of life … Remember a constraint for this new way of voting that
a Votee is a human being who puts the voter option in the core of acting. So,
that human individual renounced his voter budget in favour for being a voters
candidate. Which we all honour. And because we honour this decision we all can
agree upon the viewpoint that this is a strife for all humans engaged in
co-operation. So at the end of our working life we can agree upon the state of levelling
with the Votees. This attitude is both referring to the stand in dialogues and
digestions and to the voters budget of zero points. In promoting the acceptance of this last narration we
may agree upon the sense that adults over 50 were all there life busy to ratify
their ideals in all kind of products and legislations where young ones have to
deal with by changing them again. Because the products of life of the older
generations are alive in the societal sphere, and of ancient generations even
in the cultural sphere, the author here sets the statement that we have to dissolve our community built to
the future as even more conscious human being(s). ‘) NB. here it is to be announced that the system deals with the
absolute minimum of 3 Votees on all levels. A soft penalty of 2 points
is then systemwise raised for the number of votees the voter did not manage to
select. Example: if you are in section 5 (age 29-35), you‘ve got a budget of 60
points to share with a minimum of 7 votees; however you can only select 5
votees in your team … then the system gives 2 penalties of 2 point … so the
voter can share 4 points less than the budget to the 5 votees selected :: 56
i.s.o. 60. The penalty fee can be understood as a challenge to find all votees
matching the personal coalition force. Another example at the top level of 100 points: the voter only selects 3
votees, then 8 votee options are given soft penalties of 2 points each; voters
budget is 84 point in stead of 100. The meaning of the penalties is to simplify the practise with the system
on the one hand and propagate the political game of complexity on the other
hand, or rather, system requirement. 12 / III :: cooperation & learning
Several new perspectives on cooperation are stimulated
and opened while implementing this new vehicle into the societal sphere of
democratic elections. Lets first have a glimpse on those 4 voters … where
the same colours represent equal votees. Blanks represent unique votees in the
context considering only this group of 4.
A relates to voter B by Blue, to C by Green, to D by
both Red and Green; C and D relate to one another by both Green and
Turquoise. While relations concretely expressed build on the
attraction of “same family sense”, now
the controversial differences may inspire to overcome in conversations
challenging ones formulation potentials and sphere for global unity strife. Another cooperational level is emerging … that is the
level of generational awareness. Let us see for some situations that need
consideration:
How do a 18 year old human and a parent of 53 relate
in the political decision core? The 18 year human is in the 4th year of
dealing with 20 points to assign the personal contribution in the collective
sphere. Related to the parent s/he realises the fact of life that once s/he
will be in the situation of the other, by then dissolving from the higher
electional budgets. The parent is theoretically in the E8 box where a 80 points
budget on the election circuit is in the pocket to attach to Votees. The former
duty pressure to vote however, can now be dissolved if this voter has managed
to reach the transformational conscious-level that meets the ultimate ideal of
the Votee: no budget, however the awareness to put the deeds to the mouth in
the collective sphere is learned (sufficient). Another situation that occurs later in the same
relationship:
How do a 40 year old human and a parent of 75 relate
in the political decision core? Can the reader manage to give an explanation that
means a thing on the communion side? In this short but illustrated design narration space
for further analysis on relational consequences when this design is implemented
in the actual world of democracy as a decisional vehicle agreed upon is not
filled, but deliberately kept open for communities that are willing to comment
and have dialogue on their intercourse processes. 13 / IV :: presence & dynamics
Let me add
a weekly notion lectured by mr. Andrew Cohen : Our Future Potential - Andrew Cohen - 2006 week 51 The intersubjective structures that
will hold our future potential don't pre-exist out there in the ether; they are
created by real people. And I feel like a big part of my work has to do with
finding out what it actually means to create those structures, consciously,
together. I don't know where this is all ultimately leading, but
I do know for sure that the stability of the new structures is completely
dependent upon the actual level of integrity and authenticity of the
individuals who are creating them. Considering this quote in relation with the context
talked about in the context and its referential design of a peoples mass
decision tool we may say the Generation Binding Silence structure is also of
the type “intersubjective” while the vehicle guides people, generations,
individuals through the mental time sphere of life. Accepting this analytical
state we also have to consider the educational factor of facilitating both
inter-human and inter-institutional communication in the two relational
radicals of Interior / Exterior and Individual / Collective sphere given as
quadrants in the context as a whole. Here all the decisional conversation
quadrants governance, dialogue, politics and democracy are addressed. The presence of all the essential co-operational
perspectives is acknowledged and kept in a dynamical rhythm. Each day members
of society shift from one generation step to another, not each year but each
individual once every 7 years on a birthday. Some of those individuals raise on
the budget line and other ones dissolve, or by following the system-wise
breakdown or by accepting a fact of life and partaking citizen educations.
00 /
V :: Concluding Article “Shift in Voting :: Democracy Catalyst”
Since Building this article with the originator in order to
reveal the mechanism to the people, let us pass the questions: ·
Why do we need this? ·
What thought emerged this? ·
Where do we, the people, gain
from it? ·
How do we implement it, ·
or before that, how do we
convince one another on the pivotal esteem? ·
Can you tell us about some
refinements? Why
do we, people of a nation, need this?
I spectate this world and the competition at vast scales beyond the human personal mind that
pulses into all our lives, in all our nations = nations that I see as clusters
of individuals living in a sort of controlled area, intentionally
self-managing, maintaining, sustaining the standards of their people. Now, in
those years we seem to be in a kind of harness that doesnot resonate the human creative friction we somehow
suppose as general human fundaments. Let
me share a comment of Jan Roelofs, a partner working in my learningspace
iGovernance & iPolitics (i=integral). He quoted an article about religare
groups recognized in an investigation in the Netherlands 2006 – just before the
november 2006 elections. The largest group is 26 percent of people,
individuals, who quest their own individual spirituality … So this group is not
represented by any political party. I can be an option to think that those people do not affirm the system we
live in anymore! Do you reader read me,
here right now? Okay, I know I am drawing a quick however very strong line if
you see it from the side of a booming trendline. Do the notions of mr. Ken Wilber in Boomeritis synchronize with those trends? Is there the thought that he is in favour with
the city of And to be clear from my personal engagement isn’t that
right in the middle of the Rose where I live with my public company Waternet , where the elite
positions the company as a water-cycle service company serving waste,
surface and drinking water and I propose
to them to make it an integrated water-cycle service company where the human
factor is fully implemented in the focus of the wisdom board? What
thought emerged this?
Let me first draft the circumstance that sort of struck my life in the time that an idea
entered my visional mind. By occasion I was employed with BSO/Origin, a former dutch information and software
company, and just a year after visiting Frances Bicentennial in 1989, I was asked
to co-member my political party in the
local council. So, what am I saying here … my open mind was in a sort of
creative friction with History, Democracy and Technology. So, what thought emerged the awareness of Shift in
Voting :: Democracy Catalyst? I was living in 3 worlds, and in the same period
I experienced all kind of communication
chaos with my fellow humans :: sort of loosing my communication (fibres)… I investigated this all the time relying on my strong
beliefs … I even noted down a list of 12 persons that “deserved” my full trust
… and every now and then I replaced one by another one = think, confirming my
self-development. So I was all the time practising a new kind of
“voting”, which is in my strong belief a core for decision making for all humans partaking the “world order”, the
spaceship “earth”. Simple start for the vision was the thought : can
everyone get 20 points to assign to a selection of at least 3 individuals that
gain by my decision my trust to be in a fruitfull team on political interests.
My selection, and the ability to change that selection at any time, should set
my focus on the playgrounds of local politics and exercise my brainframe
on global affairs. An illustration
document on (collective) decision
making qoutated: “Can two decisions
that contradict each other both be good.? Surprising as it may seem the answer is
- Yes. The reason is simple: different patients have different priorities; some prefer life with disability to death, while others prefer death to life with disability. Both decisions are Good for those who made them, as they
are determined by different priorities, not by facts, knowledge or logic. Different people have different priorities, and there is no absolute priority enabling us to grade all
priorities. How does all this relate to
politics? Is politics about decisions or about
conclusions? Do politicians decide policy or conclude
policy? In politics people vote. Voting is choosing. To choose is to prefer. People decide what to prefer. Anyone deciding policy - King, Dictator, President, Prime Minister, Leader, or ordinary citizen - chooses one option from a number of
options. We cannot choose a conclusion. Answering What to do? is always a decision, never a conclusion. Decisions are determined by priorities,
not by data, knowledge or reasoning. The same facts, knowledge, and logic, can lead to
different decisions due to different priorities. Politics is decisions, not
conclusions. We decide political issues. We do not conclude them. Those who make a decision are responsible for its results as they could make a different decision (motivated by a different
priority) and get different results. Politicians whose decisions produce undesirable results usually try to evade their responsibility for such results by
saying I had no choice pretending their
decisions were conclusions. But they voted. Voting is choosing. One cannot choose a conclusion.“ So, the individual conclusion “ICH HABE ES NICHT GEWUSST” may be a notice of lack : lack of an appropriate
methodology (system), and thereby systematically promoting
public ignorance. Where
do we, the people, gain from this new kind of thinking?
Honestly, I could not say that or proof the gain for a
long time … Since december 2000 there a pivot happened: the
magazine Ode organized an event where the Treaty of Bretton Woods was
challenged to “our time”. At that event an open space conference breeded the
term “generation binding”. The term S’ilence is recently attached to those 2
words, replacing the modern science term Matrix. Let me
share another Wilberian Type Quadrant private investigation: human sense fields (by cosmic resonance)
analogue to the basic perspectives :
analogue to the public functionalities :
I do not say this is the truth, but it is a way of
seeing & sensing a truth … I sense this can be a perception on general truth … The 5th Verb that reverberates is the verb
:: force “Heal” :: lightning … which resonates on … “Speak” :: sounding this verb is like the thumb orchestring the 4 fingers
(the Quadrant) … they are all true and whole partakers in a field of
cooperation. Now, back to the question … I see and cannot
think alone … So, cooperating we, the people, accept our thinking as
the new kind of human rising NOW. And the philosophic notice may be we got beyond Descartes “I think, so : I am” ;-) :: ( Heal :: See – Feel – Touch –
Think :: Speak ) (can you please think about this while seeing your world through our eyes?) How
do we implement it, or before that, how do we convince one another on the
pivotal esteem?
Convince? I donot sense the effect of convincing, I’ld rather stick to the word mr. Peter Merry (center
for human emergence – the SYNNERVATE
(just g**gle it). Then, how do we implement it :: have an international
debate on this subject calling all stations to subscribe a global
joint venture project and facilitate
the PEOPLES DIALOGUE . In the meantime we get on building the tools just
accepting the rough draftlines as they are and bring it up. Not only as a
paradigm for election procedures at nation or local community scale but also on
schools and universities and big companies. do you get the picture, pivoting all objections to the
projects advantage? Can you tell us about some refinements?
Okay, I will tell some: 9. at
a generation phase (consider life generally split up in 13x7 yearzones) each
human has a budget for voting on the national and the local scale, and to that
provisionally on the global scale. 10.Each
phase specific budget sticks to the rules that a maximum of 50 percent of the
budget may be assigned to the personal favourite votee (term replaces the word
public representative or candidate on political issues). Meaning, everyone gets
used to bring up a team that cooperates in the common field of dialogue ; say
debate when the decisions are mutually made. 11.A
voter cannot be a Votee, and vice versa … 12.The
generation approach defines the act of the Votee to be recommendable for all
humans, may I say here the working class. So the kind of work the Votee does,
i.e. loosing his job and being available a a public servant, is the ideal
situation for all people. Reality says that only 5 percent of the people assign
their talents on that exposure. 13.This
system is built upon the requirement that the system works (why not?). So, at
the end of a lifetime each Voter has the same budget on Voting as the Votee =
which is defined as ZERO POINTS (you vote by acting mutual). 14.The
refinement conclusion is, if I may say this, an act in the line of Praise of
Folly, a short story on life by Desiderius Erasmus, it is about Dying, about
being in the Fire. So, to all those Votees we, the people say, you are my
destiny in the sense of being in the Fire without False Measure (=Voting &
Learning to Manage). 15.While
every Voter can maintain the personal budget on the fly of life, it may be of
our notice that s/he is less drifting on mediation just before an election Day.
So, is this an advantage or is this a disadvantage regarding the seriousness of
the communities truth and authenticity? (let my 7th refinement be a quest, okay!) 16.Last
refinement here, can be the quest on worldcitizen forum where one is
investigating a global democracy and an instrument that guides all involved in
a profound dynamic flow including synchronisation points as decisions are. Let
me drop two options in this broadcasting article: a. this
GBS’ilence paradigm describing an alternative for national and local elections
replacing the old one, one man one vote, can be a fundament for the Global Core
Election by splitting the budget in 2 parts: at most 50 percent of the budget
may be attached to fellow country votees; and there is no restriction to the
percentage given to outer country votees. b. another
approach given the GBS’ilence fundament can be the collective GBS’vote. A
definition of a collective GBS’vote can be that the collective is a group of 5
(transnational) individuals that interacts willingly for at least 1 year in a
sort of harmonic. Only group budgets can account in the Global Election Core.
Any worldcitizen is free to arrange a group that can be authentified. ( a rough
and fresh idea :) Is
this now at the start of year 2007 the right time to shift from the old to the
new method?
To me, this is the right time ; and really I did not
even wait for this moment to come … I live this (hell of a) life … may I invite you to breath
it in and out again and again?
[1] We slice
through the design more easily with the catalyzing construction delivered by
Ken Wilbers 4 Quadrants, to be learned in depth at Integral Institute and his
work. Those 4 Quadrants deliver 4 perspectives out of the radical lines interior/exterior
and individual/collective crossing one another delivering the 4 quadrants
communicational together in a contextual sphere at stage. In order to remind
ourselves being connected in this articlesphere it is recommendable to
recognize the “ :: “ , 4 dot
Quadrants as a guiding symbol to a universal integral language grammar.
|
