The Future of Democracy

Yes, we need to do this, again and again, and recognize, as Baldwin did, that we internalize these power dynamics. Those who think they have transcended these power ploys are usually trapped within them in hidden ways. No one transcends slavery or poverty. I did not transcend homophobia, or the AIDS epidemic, That some few individuals break out of a destructive pattern is true, but that is a sheer luck which we should not point to as evidence that the system we have is the best of all possible worlds. The political unconscious is cruel. Neo-Liberalism rides upon fraud.

We do need a logic that can work with paradox, strange loops, surprise. In complex, unstable systems, such as ours, we will have to be much more agile than we have ever been before. We need, in my view, to speak to power, speak about power, and speak from power. Each of us is a microcosm, and we do have occult powers, that, if they were unleashed, would be awesome. Some leaders unfortunately are prone to delusion and deception as they use external circumstances to personal advantage. And then there is the power of a Rosa Parks, who refused to give up her seat. Let’s use all of our powers, on many levels, and unfold them wisely, within these highly toxic times.

2 Likes

From John:
we will have to be much more agile than we have ever been before. We need, in my view, to speak to power, speak about power, and speak from power. Each of us is a microcosm, and we do have occult powers, that, if they were unleashed, would be awesome.

This is not to exclude Dancing,Swimming or Even Flying…

In the Changing Manifestations of the 10,000 Forms.

3 Likes

That is not my language, Rick, I have never used the term ‘metavision’., This is your language, and it comes close to a parody of my style of discourse, which you may not like. In some ways, we don’t choose our vocabularies, as we are not producers of a private language. Public and private are in our age very fuzzy categories and our boundaries are increasingly more porous. I take great pains to give attention to the language that another person actually uses, rather than paraphrase or add something that might creates unnecessary ambiguity. We all have our own style and I am aware of how easy it is to mock others, forcing others to compete, and ride upon a wave of invincibility. Leaders do this all the time. Ambiguity can be dangerous in politics, and in the arts in can be beautiful. But this forum is a peer to peer network, leaderless, and is quite fragile when writing is employed, which is much more slippery than speech. What might be intended as irony can be read as mockery. When speaking in person, as in our live calls, there is more of a chance to process non verbals, which is where the action lies. With these differences in style, Rick, and tone, we can point out differences that make a difference. I do my best, I am sure you do your best, for there is a great deal at stake. I have tried to understand others, although that is an ideal that not everyone, all the time, can make happen. We are working with a medium of asynchronous communication that is quite clunky. I strive to create a sense of safety here and will continue to do so. If someone says something that triggers me, and this happens often, I try to slow down. So, I hope I have conveyed my positive intent, as I object to the term ‘metavision’ being attributed to me. It has Wagnerian, if not Hitlerian, overtones.

1 Like

My apology, the "meta’ portion was all I was referring to, not the the word “metavision” or the other aspects you mention .

2 Likes

Thanks, I appreciate that, Rick, and how we ‘go meta’ is a big concern of mine as people often are accused of being too abstract, or too concrete. It seems in your posts that you can ‘go meta’ , too. Seeking patterns that connect is behind the meta-game and it can be a big problem as factoids and facts are tossed about interchangeably. Thanks again for you insights.

2 Likes

Agree totally with you.

3 Likes

I think many of the founders - and perhaps all the Enlightenment thinkers, at least in private - knew the world was not a rational place. Their age of reason was symbolized by catalogs of scientifically derived knowledge and pristine white Greek statuary. (One wonders what the effect would have been had they known how gaudily painted those sculptures originally were.) The timing may have, but I don’t think the course the French Revolution took surprised them very much. And so, they tried. In any event 250 years really isn’t bad for a decentralized yet unitary political system; Rome bought another 500 by switching (nice euphemistic word here :grinning: ) to empire.

Trump tapped into an underlying current of narrative that resonates with roughly half of us and turned that into a job in the Oval Office. That makes him a leader in my book. His chosen strategy of divide and rule did not resonate with the other half of us and he lost an electoral contest, but I’m sure none of us here see this as really giving anyone a “mandate” right now for far-reaching political changes. I agree with you about the need to address the foundations of the system first, voter confidence and the fair apportionment of representation.
Beyond that, my solution would be term limits for them all - but, as I said, too radical. (LOL!)

This story is far from over indeed.

5 Likes

Some final thoughts and take aways from this thread. I hope others are feeling understood and appreciated, None of us can deal with this mutation in consciousness that is happening without support.

These procedural moves that Rick and TJ point to are important. The Founding Fathers worked hard to create a separation of powers with an independent judiciary. They were very procedural. They also had a very Euclidean outlook ( all men are created equal).

When Washington stepped down after his final term in the Whitehouse, Europe was shocked. No general who got into power ever left voluntarily before. It is noteworthy, perhaps, that Trump is probably the first president to act like an aging movie star clinging to his favorite role.

But we are talking about the Future on this thread. And when you speak of the future you are inviting imaginative faculties to take over. Anticipating the future is what most people are doing more of the time than not. Fantasy can lead to infantilization. Vision is not to be confused with reverie, fantasy, and daydream as important as those functions are in tuning into different phases of human consciousness. And Vision is not personal, It is more about the aesthetics of our living arrangements in the future when we are dead and gone. Vision puts into play dynamics that most of us will not see the benefits of in our lifetimes. Politicians, with fixed term limits, and corporate sponsors, aren’t good at Vision. That is why we need citizens who are willing to volunteer and work long hours for no pay, to take risks and experiment, to make time for time, and to collaborate.

It is not easy to do the Vision thing, Most politicians don’t even try. They make pretty speeches. That is why the people need a Vision and can co-create desired outcomes for themselves. Movements can implement a Vision over multiple generations, not fearless leaders. Prophecy and Vision create instability at first, but, in art and philosophy and music they can make vast long term contributions. Culture leads and Politics follow. I think Chris Hedges makes much of this. And there is a long Emersonian tradition in our culture which is essentially Gnostic.

Mitch McConnel and Trump are not Visionaries nor are they prophets, they are profiteers. They have a mission and that is to make lots of money for themselves and their corporations, in the short term. Vision is grounded in how we might live with others, in rhythmic harmony, with forces that far exceed the Mental structure, in efficient or deficient forms.

The Founding Fathers were in some respects futurists. Biden and Trump are not. They are trying to oversimplify and gerrymander and so far the courts have not been fooled by Trump’s theatricals but we are wobbling badly.

In some ways, the Visionary, the Realist and the Critic functions are installed in the three branches of government already. Technology has changed us and our relationship to Time, The legislative branch is trying to codify what can’t be codified. Laws cannot govern the commons, which are much more like weather patterns in motion than like an axiom in a geometry textbook. We are moving towards a fractal world that will make the legislature wither pretty quickly with a short term, profit driven, quick fix orientation. We can’t blame our Founding Fathers for this non-linear mess. I am hopeful but not that optimistic in the short term. Lots more to think about, thanks to all,

3 Likes