[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

00722: Re:[WDDM] Democracy vs. Fundamentalism: a know-how

From: s'ace <cjdegroot(at)orange.nl>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 00:57:28 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re:[WDDM] Democracy vs. Fundamentalism: a know-how

Dear Antonio and fellow human in dialogue here

i read this article of mr.Rossin, of my "twin" fellow antonio whom i so appreciate for all his work, and sure for this
contribution as well ...

i here wanna focus on a thing that is not mentioned in DD/RD dialogues, so far if i may recall (my status of knowledge).

lets me create an entrypoint - using this snapshot out of antonios contribution:

"We need to alert parents to their key role of showing infants an
example of mutual respect in the family circle. Each of us needs to
be encouraged to take part in planning within each one's growing
capacities, not to accept ideologies as unquestionable authority. In
developed countries this flexible thinking is most tragically lacking
in our first tree years when language patterns and other habits of
interpersonal exchange are absorbed and tend to bias our later
thinking or hold back our social maturity.
This education long before school years may be crucial."

Questions mark:
1-WE :: what label is here attached to the collective perspective "we"; or "selection" argument; or "discriminator" arg.?
lets spectate this confident crystal clear as if it is "aromatic nutrition on the dish served"?
2-MATURITY :: except for social maturity there must be other discriminating types of maturity - aint we aware?
may i offer the types :: behavioural, self/introspectal, social, cultural and to those 4 the govermental maturity as 4+1 types
that may cover the whole core? first 4 covering the YIN/fields; last 1 covering the YANG/"in =historic= power"kernel.
3-EDUCATION :: i agree upon the notion of Antonio that there is an EDUCATIONAL WORKING FIELD before a human/a not-
mature/a confident crystal clear referred fellow human as the TODDLER/BABY. Say the field where PARENTS and PARENTAL
COVERUPS are working as EDUCATOR.
There are types of fields where EDUCATION is practised except for the SCHOOL we also are aware of the STATE's effort to
EDUCATE the CITIZEN = or is it here the HISTORIC PARADIGM ???

Let me not answer this right away ... meaning wanna invite you to accept those 3 (more? bring in?) questing arguments.

thanks for antonio and thanks for reading as initial necessity to cling on (if ever)
s' ace

- i'll co-handle this e-merging field on http://www.integraldemocracy.blogspot.com/

Datum: 05/11/06 10:23 PM
Van: "Antonio Rossin" <rossin(at)tin.it>
Aan: rossin(at)tin.it
CC: cicdd(at)yahoogroups.com, wddm@world-wide-democracy.net, analytical-indicant-theory(at)yahoogroups.com,
nominalism(at)yahoogroups.com, democracy-europe(at)yahoogroups.com, listserv(at)pdforum.org,
LearningCommunities(at)yahoogroups.com, simpolicies-general(at)yahoogroups.com
Onderwerp : [WDDM] Democracy vs. Fundamentalism: a know-how

Dear democrat friend,

I'm pleased with posting you my last article, "Democracy vs
Fundamentalism: a know-how" I wrote for the GLOBAL
DEMOCRACY NEWSLETTER (Issue # 002, Year 1)
<http://www.wmgd.net/archive/30102006.html>(
http://www.wmgd.net/archive/30102006.html )

the article follows:

==========================================> "Democracy vs. Fundamentalism: a know-how"
by Antonio Rossin - Oct. 24, 2006

When a child comes into the world the first authority she senses,
for understandable survival necessities, is her mother. We can
reasonably assume that the more basic communication patterning
a child learns and gets imprinted with, is the hierarchic mother/child
relationship.

Very soon a second authority enters the child's world: her father.
Consequently a further element influences the language mediated
hierarchic relationship that the child is learning and being
imprinted with. This particular element depends on the particular
way her mother and her father communicate together.
Two basic options of this way can be considered:

1. Father and mother question each other in a peer-to-peer
relationship. The child won't detect and imprint any super-authority
over the first one she learned basically.

2. The mother submits her own personality and opinions to the male
parent's super-authority, by never questioning the latter but always
obeying it. This implies that the attending child is bound to learn -
and becomes imprinted accordingly - that there is a super-authority
which transcends the mother's and cannot be questioned even but
always obeyed, beyond any understandable survival purpose.

Let's suppose, the strength by which the fundamentalist trait
feeds-back and imprints into the child parallels that of the
male-dominated hierarchy by which her parents perform their daily
family relationships at the very delicate age - zero to three - in
which she is learning both language patterning and language
mediated social hierarchy linked together, and from that age
onwards. Vice versa, if the way her parents relate together were
lined up to the utmost gender parity, reciprocal respect and dialectic
confrontation of opposite opinions, the child is expected to learn and
develop critical thinking, the ability to question the authority and to
put flexible behaviours into action according to her own individual
responsibility, self-consciousness and flexible thinking. (1)
Accordingly, fundamentalism in children - future adult people -
goes together with a male dominated family and social hierarchy.
No wonder then, if all religions are male dominated.

Actually, parents and educators have two options - let's call one
of them " Democracy" and the other "Fundamentalism" - at their
disposal in order to feed-back their children's mindframe self-fixing
since babyhood. They should be informed properly, in any country
of the world. With this aim, an European project is being launched
on this topic. (2)

Today's religious fundamentalism is known to be the worst threat
to humankind's survival. Yet, for fundamentalism to succeed, the
male-female hierarchy looks educationally mandatory in parenting.
Usually, within most fundamentalist countries, such a gendered
hierarchy is imposed by force onto mothers and women. But we
also know that there are women and mothers who still ignore that
the origin of fundamentalism depends on themselves, so that they
voluntarily undergo the male dominated family hierarchy even if
they had the chance not to do it. This raises a trivial question that is
not being addressed any where in the media or in the Internet still.
The question is: how can our Western countries hope to provide
democracy, liberty, and justice to the Middle East and elsewhere in
the world if we to do not first provide and show democracy, liberty,
and justice to our citizens since our families as an example?

Let me conclude with a quote from a Doug Everingham's letter:

" An early entrenched problem is widespread acceptance of
leadership as the highest virtue. We foster authoritarian, dogmatic
cultures based on holy writ, race, gender, military and economic
power, nationalism and the information industry. It works fine for
training hunting packs of animals that need to be shown who is boss,
even for competitive team games. It is disastrous if it dominates our
compassion in child rearing.

We need to alert parents to their key role of showing infants an
example of mutual respect in the family circle. Each of us needs to
be encouraged to take part in planning within each one's growing
capacities, not to accept ideologies as unquestionable authority. In
developed countries this flexible thinking is most tragically lacking
in our first tree years when language patterns and other habits of
interpersonal exchange are absorbed and tend to bias our later
thinking or hold back our social maturity.
This education long before school years may be crucial.

Growing violence and drug misuse are problems for parents and role
models. Knee-jerk 'remedies' include censoring TV or policing the
Internet. Too late for the worst cases. Dr Rossin suggests parents
are most likely to consider trying his suggestions first as a preventive
approach to one of the least confident and least secure fields of
parenting -- drug misuse. His theory might then become a factor for
preventing fundamentalist rigidity in stress reactions and decision
making in a wider sphere: fanatical militancy, bigotry etcŠ"

That's allŠ

-Antonio Rossin


Notes:
(1) Details at: http://www.flexible-learning.org/eng/einstein.htm
(2) Details at: http://www.flexible-learning.org/eng/objective_flexibility.htm

Copyfree

============================================> End of the article. Sorry for cross-posting. Comments welcome.


Best regards,

antonio
--
Antonio Rossin - Neurologist
‚ Dialectical Philosopher ‚
rossin(at)tin.it
http://www.flexible-learning.org

Coordinamento ISPO Italy:
http://www.simpol.org
ispo.italy(at)simpol.org


"t(h)ree self one fo(u)r alll alll fo(u)r one self t(h)ree"


[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]