Perhaps
Patriarchal would
be as equally descriptive. Father knows best. The father, the son and the holy
circumciscum. How about Burkas? Why is the picture of a succesful woman one of a
model in a pinstriped mini skirt with high heels and padded shoulders? You don’t
see many women Generals or Popes.
Careful,
Ireland’s
new blasphemy laws just went into effect.
-----Original
Message-----
From: Antonio
Rossin [rossin(at)tin.it]
Sent: January 4, 2010 3:43 PM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] RE: Season greetings
and wishes for a new WDDMCongress in the New year!
Esi ha scritto:
Hi Ant
Human
societies with a few isolated exceptions has been and are hierarchical.
Hi Hamid,
I
don't know of any absence of hierarchy everywhere human communication
exists.
Maybe, there are some human societies without any formal hierarchical
arrangement.
But substantially, communication in order to be effective
requires core hoierarchy
between speaker an listener, parent and child,
teacher and pupil, natural leader amd
natural gregarious people.
Those in power and welfare
and those who take order and do the job.
Most of those in power and welfare
are satisfied with social reality and don’t
demand for changes.
Provided only their
leadership is up. As soon as their power decreases, they
demand for
changes immediately.
Most changes in human
societies in history has been initiated and performed by
those who suffer
and are unsatisfied. The wave of unsatifaction and demand for
changes get
stronger and weaker by time depended to social reality in different
times.
When those in power are clever enough to accept changes evolution and
peacefully and peaceful changes take place.
I don't think so. They
accept the changes only which don't decrease their power
in anything.
(Direct) Democracy implies the decrease of every hierarchic power,
uo to the
reversal of the current hierarchy. Insdeede, this reversal would be up
even today, with "We the People" being the sovereign, if only the people
were
aware of the communication hierarchy which they still unawarely undergo
to.
When those in power has not
understood the reality and resist changes
perhaps it initiates revoulutions
and bloodshed. In short periods of time in a
society’s history people in
lower part of hierarchy don’t mind to demand for
changes of different
reasons as fear, fatique, hopelessity, etc. But this does
not mean
that they are satisfied.
I can be wrong but it looks like that you Antonio
see only one part of problem
which is lower part of the social hierarchy and
forget the higher parts responsibility
for changes.
My humble opinion is, each
one of us should accomplish one's own task
consinstently and
responsibly. This basic task requires each one of us to pay
the utmost
attention in the lower part of social hierarchy, which is the part we
live
in and should be directly responsible for, first of all the family arrangement
and hierarchy as the paragon.
We cannot pretend to build Democracy in
the government, which is the higher
part of the social hierarchy which those
in power live in and are responsible for.
What happens in Iran now is
an obvious example of that lower part of the
hierarchy are demanding mostly
peacefully for changes to more democracy
and freedom of speach.
In other
words they take care of their part of responsibility to change the
society
peacefully.
Looks like utopia. No
governement accepts peacefully more freedom in people,
the History teaches.
Let's imagine what the totalitarian fundamentalist theocratical
ones will
do.
Buttt...
"I can be wrong but it looks like that you Hamid see only one
part of problem
which is higher part of the social hierarchy and forget the
lower parts responsibility
for changes." (your words, dear
Friend, see above )
Tell me please, what about today's Iranian
family arrangement? Is it democratic?
There is dialectic communication, i.e.
freedom of speech, inside? There is gender
parity?
The answer from
ahuthorities are killing, torturing, rubbing and hiding countries
resources
in their own accounts outside the country and etc.
I wonder if you are also
engaged to find ways to convience people in power to
take their part of
responsibility.
Of course. I am
advocating the "question the authority" arttitude in people, by
writing
articles in the local newspaper and in the internet. I carried out my
share
in an European project. I contributed on 1998 to the "Awakening
Planetary
Consciousness2 Symposium in Lucknow India. Etc.
I don’t blame you if you
are only engaged in changing the lower part of the
hierarchy because the
risks are much lower for you to do so.
Demanding for change of behaviour of
higher part of hierarchy has always
been risky for those who dare.
Of course, it is risky
for any one who speaks and advocates changes in the
social hierarchy. One
risks to be jailed in prison when the public do listen to,
or in a lunatic
asylum when the public do not. But there is a solution - if only
one knows, i.e. is able to control, the communication relationship one
shares
into, thus speaking second, after being asked for.
I don’t neither blame the
authorities for their behaviour because it is a part
of human mentaliy to
struggle for his own interests before others.
This is the cause of the
saying that, power corrupts people.
It is therefore I believe to direct
democracy and not indirect democracy via
politician and leaders. If we study
history we find many leaders who has
started their carrier as progressive
and people loving leaders but by time
they have changed to dictators.
Therefore... power beyond
people's control is always a loss for the downsiders
(ourselves).
You are ( or IS if it satisfies Lucas) right that
authorities are not ailiens but
humans and that is why I don’t blame them
but political systems. It is our
heritage of old-fashioned political systems
which change people to dictators
and unhuman characters.
I think most
people are aware of facts above but the real problem is how
to change the
faulty political systems to better ones.
The obstacle and stop for changes
exist most of the time between higher part
of the hierarchies.
The
target for me is direct democracy which means split of power between
all
individuals in the society. It must be more difficult that all people in a
society
get corrupted than a few people in the top.
I don’t have
time now to explain more but perhaps and if necessary in the future.
Regards
Hamid
Holy words,
Hamid.
regards, antonio
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jim Powell" <autoinfo(at)acenet.co.za>
Sent:
Sunday, January 03, 2010 7:08 PM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: RE: [WDDM] RE: Season greetings and wishes for a
new WDDMCongress in the New year!
Hi Ant,
Thanks for the email. Look for *** below
Regards
Jim Powell, Johannesburg, South Africa
-----Original Message-----
From: Antonio Rossin
Sent: 03 January 2010
03:48 PM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] RE: Season greetings and wishes for a new WDDMCongress
in the New year!
Jim and Hamid,
why don't you come closer to
reality? Please open your eyes, and you
will see:
Within the
reality that exists, Politicians are NOT the employees of the
voters. They
should be, but are not. *** I agree with you that politicians do not act as
employees. The description of being employed and having the salary paid is that
of an employee. If the voters in each constituency supports a candidate that
signs up for DD, and that person wins, then there is a person in the system that
will push DD
Politicians in direct democracy sytem are NOT employed
experts and researchers who support voters. They should be, but are not. ***
These people are selected by the voters, which is OK by me. The voters in DD
still have control
Therefore, Direct Democracy which we are minding
about, is un-existent, within today's reality. It should be, but it is
not. *** As long as the system of binding Referendum and I the initiative is in
place, the voters then have the option of accepting status quo or rejecting it.
Who are the culprit, of this non-existence? Maybe the main culprit
is ourselves, as far as we are unable to question the authority. *** In DD the
mechanisms for not only questioning authority, but changing the decisions that
are made
Which questioning should start from the crystal evidence that
our |"politicians"are not aliens from a distant planet. They are the spontaneous
leading authorities of the collectivity we live
in, whom we accept as
official authorities without being able to question whether they are, or are
not, the employees of the voters, i.e., employed researchers and experts who
support the voters. *** The politicians are employed by the voters
Within the existing reality, they support themselves only - except
perhaps a too few only - in their enduring struggle for (money and) power. ***
With DD this can change
(As a practical consequence: dear DD lower and
activist, stop please asking the politicians in office for they to build up
Direct Democracy) *** It is up to the voters to put in representatives that
believe in Direct Democracy
Regards,
ant
*********************************
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reifications (like biological entozoic infections of the gut) are
proto-socio-neurological enculturations and as useful fictions
are not necessarily symbiotic with, nor necessarily benignly
adjuvant to the welfare of their unwitting and often naive hosts.
Jud Evans.
Freedom in humans consists of the ability to liberate
oneself from the tyranny of reificationalist imprinting.
Antonio Rossin.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*********************************