Clarifying Political Philosophy

[Adrian_ada]

I want to talk about clarifying political philosophy, clarifying the true nature of political reality.

[VideCorSpoon]

Egh-de-de-don't quote me regulations. I co-chaired the committee that reviewed the recommendation to revise the COLOR of the book that regulation is written in.

We kept it grey...

(Prime bureaucrat of the central bureaucracy)

LOL! A mighty task is set before you in that endeavor. What exactly do you want to clarify? Also, welcome to the forum!

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Adrian_ada

I want to talk about clarifying political philosophy, clarifying the true nature of political reality.

The nature of politics is the resolution of issues and conflicts created by the interaction of a group of individuals.

[Gilborn]

Both bureaucracy and the endeavor to work out or differences are parts of today’s politics in any country that has a political system in which the people have a say in the ruling. If you have ever read 1984 by George Orwell I think you would have a better idea of a real government, and politics. Money, Power, Control, Deception, Image, and destruction.

Got to get back to work, I'll continue later

[de_budding]

'Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions that affect others' lives. The term is generally applied to behavior within civil governments, but politics has been observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions.' - Wikipedia

But I think I started to get my first taste of personal clarification when I read Aristotle’s Politics. At the start Aristotle works from the lowest, social common denominator, the people of a state, and works his way up through the household, through staff (or slaves); through private business, trade etc. Then drawing upon examples of other states and how/why they don't work.

Straight away the nature of politics appears as a social nature, and one that is born from the interaction of minds (or brains to a lesser extent.) Hence I think it is something which should be governed closer to the lowest common denominator. Does not the interactions of the quantum world (our lowest denominator) govern our's and everything's actions?

A top down approach like that of a government goes against the natural order of systems and how systems can arise from chaos and be self persistent. We try to act as a waterfall throwing resources of the edge, trying to cascade them downwards to the lowest common denominator bellow as we see they needs. What is more practical and natural is a self persistent system more akin to a wave of water, running forward because it's falling down and falling down because it is running forward. The lowest common denominator here is able to govern propagation by what it needs alone, and what it needs can in turn by governed by what they are.

Note: If any one is confused by my lame analogies, you may be able to see where I’m coming from if you read Steve Grand’s ‘Creation: Life and How to make it’. In his book systems like water waves become the building blocks for the logic used to create any system… like a learning robot (Growing up with Lucy 2004 is his book on the product of his method.) A top-down approach like that of a government, water fall or military unit is a incorrect approach if any one wants to create a self persistent system; this becomes evident as he begins to demonstrate that to understand natural and extremely complex systems like the human brain and learning, one needs to abandon a top-down or outside-in approach. In order to work out the needs and roles of the systems constituents (and therefore the system in itself) you have to ignore what the system wants or needs and cut to the chase… the lowest common denominator. I see governmental systems no differently.

But politics and government are not this dynamic and never will be! If they insist on throwing what we request to us, slowly changing the bone they throw based on our reaction (based on the systems wants not the constituents) to the request fulfilment then we will get no where fast.

Well that’s my two penneth.

Dan.