its like riding a conceptual bicycle

many people have little idea of serious discussion
even to the extent of not knowing or having any command
of concepts underlying elements of serious discussion.

one one level, an introduction to some of these underlying elements,
is essential for a foundation.

one can argue of the merits of various subjects and conceptual frameworks
- but i would say - as introductory and precursor,
it matters little as to what particular political
or philosophical or structural framework they are.
ie as long as a maturing person gets the "gist" of ,
perhaps , three such systems, that should be enough,
for the future capability of the person,
regardless of potentially years of future neglect.

obviously, the frameworks that a person is vaguely familiar with
will colour their interaction :
hence familiarity with more than one.

secondly : the reason i suggest three,
is to break the person out of binary reasoning or understanding
- to get them deep wired above the level of thesis, antithesis and synthesis.

now a problem, potentially,
is the fact that when it comes to serious discussion proper;
age, culture, etc are no bar to participants,
and as such :
different frameworks, experiences, embellishments,
language meanings, deference, sacred cows,
cultural reference points, world views come into play....

possibly consequent to this,
without further experience of this later stage,
the gymnastic ability and adaptability of empathy can be a bit undeveloped.

also, supposing this posited later experience to have been gained,
-practice in serious discussion,
especially of nebulous or systemic criticism and evaluation,
a bit of focussed time ascertaining what one person actually means,
when they use a word as a label for a concept is required
- to see if the persons recieving are getting the same message as is being sent
- proper communication - if you will.

then all is good.

however, in a face to face discussion - i would say that one to one is good,
to tease nuance, to stay as much as possible or is wanted, on target,
diminish unagreed, third party distraction [noise] etc

if its internet - or written, or somehow recorded and made at least semi- permanent,
then number of participants is no real bar,
as comments are acessible durably and exactly...
they dont decay in memory, are accuracy referenceable,
and can be re-accessed at will, returned to and iterated or developed.

- realitystructure

a lighter link - to the fairer sex

in reference to a previous post

heres a lighter side to illustrate the point
- in case its a bit heavy for you
the more serious side of the point still stands though


a lighter link - to the fairer sex :


imagine:
adolfina hitler
osamama bin lady
josephina stalina
kimberly jong il
saraddamina husein
holly chi min
polly pot
roberta mugabe
carly the jackal
ya sarah arafat
bernita grant
athena scargill
mama ahmadinejad
........................... i hope they illustrate the point.


- realitystructure

cross-wired?

is it valid argument, to suggest that :
in some sections of the left,
and libertarian sections of left and right,
too much emphasis is put on opposition
and counterpropaganda
in contrast to accepting the probable reality,
though not accepting in principal,
and inevitability of some developments
in legislation that effect or diminish
civil - well man's and woman's, liberties

and

by not focussing on a pragmatic approach :
for example, in applying political and rhetorical pressure,
to ensure a better "quality" of legislation,
and a sensitive implementation,
ie, leading to an improvement wrt
long term implications for minimising erosion
of civil rights and liberties,
to ensure robust encoding into legislation,
checks balances [a horrid phrase]
and limitations on power, etc.

is it possible to argue further,
that in some cases,
cumulative years of experience,
in some sections of the left
and libertarian left and right,
"plays itself out of the game"
- with the opposition or
counterpropaganda approach
- and thus perhaps,
has some responsibility
for the easy passage of such laws,
and erosion of civil - well,
man and woman's liberties?

or is the archetype misdirected,
forbidden escape from, or betrothed
to, its kingdom or modus operandi of opposition?

- realitystructure

the above questions arise
from an essay
written by the author in late 2004

- realitystructure

mrs. monster - or - the mrs. macdonalds rule

are there examples of "dictatorships",
that the "west" has gone to war with,
that had a female [active] head of state.

are there examples of states,
in the modern era [say last 100 years],
that the "west" has "brushed",
as somehow "monstrous",
that had a female active head of state.

if there are no examples
- in many nations for obvious reasons
- i would like to posit an odd question :

is it possible for the west,
to demonise a state
or economic system
or ideology
that has an active,
female head of state

- and secondly
would the embedding
of the emotive and rhetorical lexicon
neccessary for such a demonisation,
destabilise the presented or real
cultural fabric of the "west".

imho, thats a tricky one

- realitystructure

how the mind thinks it would like to see

"this is how i [would like] to approach the world, at the moment, for the record:

not against religion , though dont necessarilly follow one or any.

not against members of any race, though may not like certain individuals of, or groups pertaining to, certain races.

am against ideology change in religion if imposed from outside - vis a vis secular principles - though up for discussion criticism jokes etc.

am against ideology change in "cultures", imposed from the outside.

am for secular rights - of equal measure for all people in the secular world, and all people traversing the secular domain.

for example : am for homosexual persons having full and equal rights within the secular domain.

am not for exlusive priveleges or positive discrimination within secular framework or domain.

am not for imposition of secular system on tribal regions , at worst case scenario knowing how the world operates am for accountable trusts for managing tribal intellectual property royalties - perhaps land.

am for framing of laws - enshrining rights etc wrt secular domain being made for all people as and thus bringing opressed up to a level and incresing with that level if and when it rises.

am for a secular domain in all nation states.

am against religions imposing view in secular world.

i am for heavy environmental protection, and if it has to be necessary, through proper [full env] costing of products processes.

am for a unity through diversity , and not at the expense of it.

am for the understanding and celebration of cultural gifts in a layered approach. detailed below using australia as an example - as a means for a robust cohesion, world over, relevent to existing nation states, and a way to understand relevent nations histories.
one idea resultant being, that from such a strengthened position : or "state of cultural being", states, from within themselves, can look into wrongs done to people, inequalities, externalities and seek how best to redress them according to case, without schizm.

at this point, not exactly sure how "gypsies", or other nomadic travellers or stateless ones, into such a worldview .

question : does that make me : left, right, con, lib, socialist etc -

i would appreciate readers appellation and reasoning."

- realitystructure

sir jays scheme : an example of layering approach to national culture
first published on medialens : Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:56 am

as an ignorant outsider [non australian] i would prescribe the following approach:

firstly - a de linking of xenophobia against "foreigners" from that of ignorance, potential racism etc towards first born australians [aborigines] -[not sure what the correct term for that historophobia centrophobia etc is- neither the derivation of the word xenophobia - so i may be tripping up over the language- but hopefully you will see what i mean]

secondly - a real sense of celebration of the "gift???" of having some of the incredible aboriginal culture still extant in australia[ may well have been attempted or done many times in recent history- im not sure] and having great pride in the fact of its remarkable survival into the present era - what lessons!

thirdly - a sense of celebration of the later waves of people [others, euro, brit, irish etc - if they were the second] who came and stayed. - a celebration of the good things about the cultures that they came from. [culture not being monolithic for race or nation - there is much diversity eg : class related, skills, art, poetry storytelling, rebellion, - to be looked into and learned from here - take it as far back as you want]

fourthly, - a celebration of the "gift" of the ancestry and culture of newer people and settlers etc.

using that direction [from one to four etc] and layering of national cultural identity - respect is payed to the culture of the former layer , [some very diminished- /hidden by the cultural identities forged in moulding of peoples ready for agressive empire] whilst, understanding is extended to the newer layers - simultaneously allowing for cultural expression, in the wider national cultural mosaic.

perhaps solving some of the problems separated at the start of this example as xenophobia towards "foreigners" which has been identified in criticism of australia more generally [see recent holiday/ tourism advertising aimed ath uk market - oops! no aborigine representation]- and no doubt amplified by media - in other places too.

of course, though there are historical similarities in the formation of modern australia, with other places, it does and should adopt its own solutions and not import them from media posited identifyers such as the "anglo-saxon?" or "french/continental" or "american" model of approaches to racial and cultural relations within a particular nation. [some of those identifiers eg "anglo saxon" model etc are used by media as p.r. renforcers for other politico-medio - cultural identifiers relating to economic approaches]

the youth of australia, can then hopefully, over the generations, grow up with a more "integrated?" attitude to the reality of modern australia, without the need to obligatorily supress elements of their own individual cultural matrix. - indeed when travelling have some better ammunition /protection for the ritual and perhaps ironic drubbing they get, from certain quarters, on their travels through europe, pertaining to aboriginal issues.

i hope you aussies dont think ive been too presumptuous in having a go here - feel free to anhialate the arguments posited .

-realitystructure

a stable dynamic architecture - ae-s-tair-iqs - approaching a unified field of reality

"when building a theory,
give some thought to its application.
building parameters into theory, its context,
its area and domain of operation,
can prevent a lot of future problems.
assembling components modularly,
can allow for expansion into new territory
whilst preventing co - option,
against original intention,
can allow for criticism,
correction, improvement,
mixed level contribution,
indexing of contribution,
adaptability through time,
inspiration and revelation
and does not preclude
the development of other theories

thats what will separate
the old theories and world views,
from the new -
whilst not precluding
the inclusion
of elements of the former
in the latter"

- open source?

-realitystructure