Let's define Right Wing and Left Wing so that we can avoid confusion. The far- right is anarchy with the right being defined by less government and regulation with it as decentralized as possible. Left Wing is defined by more government and regulation and more centralization. With these definitions, The Democracy has shifted dramatically left, so that those of us who were Democrats are no longer comfortable with the outcome. There has been more centralization of power in the federal government and more collusion with international businesses. "Wokeness" is just a reconfiguration of the old philosophies that eventuated in communism, socialism, fascism. It denies the individual any agency or responsibility. It is all about boxes: boxes of identity, social status, race, and other groups. I categorically avoid "boxes." Human beings are of divine nature and as such exceed all mortal categories. To put people in boxes is to limit and enslave them. Democracy is the rule of the majority, and our Founding Fathers knew that, so they created a Republic with representative government and a separation of powers so that the gang rule of democracy would be contained.
Let's move beyond the stereotypes of right-wing and left-wing boxes that set up dysfunctional polarizations between centralizing regulations versus decentralizing de-regulations. What about optimal harmonization and balances between decentralizing and centralizing power dynamics based on transparent accountability and equity governance? There are 5 notable exceptions where the majority of US voters did not elect their president. These minority presidents include: John Quincy Adams (1824), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888), George W. Bush (2000), and Donald Trump (2016). John Quincy Adams belonged to the Democratic-Republican Party and the other four Trump belonged to the Republican Party. Is that a fair democracy system? And lastly, your "wokeness" definition is putting people in a box.
Rick, you can't have a conversation where the words have no or nebulous meanings. Left and right are in a continuum not boxes.
It seems that the country has been saved a number of times by the Electoral College System. (Thank you Founding Fathers) Living as a minority in a majority rule system can be hell, not equitable at all. In our country, we have a country vs. city dichotomy, where in city people often create regulations that are not applicable to rural populations. Some of them are so onerous that it would destroy farming and ranching and the result would eventually mean starvation for city-dwellers, who do not know enough to realize the feedback loops. (The political map of the US is overwhelmingly red except for the cities)
I'll give you a chance to explain how a no-box system puts people in boxes. It certainly makes no sense to me.
Jonathan Haidt identified five moral values that form the basis of our political spectrum: left-center-right. Liberals honor the moral values of harm/care and fairness/reciprocity more, while conservatives endorse and use all five moral foundations more equally, including ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. Liberals and conservatives prioritize different moral concerns, which contribute to intractable moral disagreements in the political landscape. This is just one perspective. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19379034/ For a deep dive, read his book, the righteous mind https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_the_moral_roots_of_liberals_and_conservatives?language=en
I agree with your first sentence. Living as a majority in a minority rule system is also hell and more inequitable. Wrt to your second sentence, both/and thinking includes boxes and continuum. "The political map of the US is overwhelmingly red except for the cities" reflect your rural bias, but geographical size does not vote. The political map of the US population is overwhelmingly blue except for the rural areas. Let me provide some boxes for you.
You are correct that I have a rural bias, even though I have lived in cities all my life. The rural communities feed us. They are the hardest working, most compassionate folks that I know, and some of the poorest people in America. That doesn't mean all of them are wonderful, just as some city people are not wonderful. But, without the country, we all starve and everything that happens in cities is of no worth. It is pretty fundamental. I have no desire for your boxes, I work in systems with feedback loops and spirals. I don't know what we can do about cities. I think that they are in decline and people, for the first time in my lifetime, are now fleeing into the country. The problem is: they don't know how to live in the country. That is a major emphasis of Rainbird Enterprises -- to teach people how to be productive country-dwellers.
They are not my boxes (getting personal again). The utility of boxes is to deconstruct stereotypes. We are programmed to make categories, boxes of stereotypes and continua. These sense-making heuristics are about how we learn. How might we learn from upsides and downsides of these different heuristics? How can you create continua without boxes at the end? -- as you have done with your continua- between right-wing and left-wing, and between communism and anarchy. Without boxes at the end, the continua makes no sense. We also have to deconstruct continua to understand the complexities of human nature Continua are a more sophisticated stereotype than boxes. Nature is not made up of a two-dimensional continua. Categorical continua are also imprecise sense-making tools with upsides and downsides. The complexities of human nature are more than three-dimensional.
I find it difficult to see how creating categories (boxes) deconstructs stereotypes (more boxes) It seem to me that there would just be a swapping of boxes. I'm not saying that boxes don't have some utility as long a there is an understanding that the box is temporary and not comprehensive. It is just a place holder while it is awaiting either rejection or integration into a larger understanding of the patterns of complexity.
I find the content of your last comment to be very "Male" in orientation. Content (boxes) is a very Male Superpower. "Females" are not the same. Context (relational patterning) is a Female Superpower. Please see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ6mVumHY9I
It seems like a natural outcome of having "lesser of two evils" choices. We have one candidate who talks like a dictator and the other candidate who acts like a dictator while pointing fingers at the other. In realities they are both most likely criminals. What sort of machine has given us this outcome? There is another choice, but the machine doesn't like him because he will shine daylight on their shady operations. Why are we here? Maybe, because through ignorance or malice we each contribute to it. If each of us takes responsibilities for our choices instead of rationalizing our choices, maybe we can get out of it? Maybe!
I would expand the frame to the "lesser of many evils". The machine is the good-old, corrupt crony demoncracy (not a mis-spellng), truth decay, dark money, and a litany of factors. The decline in the US democracy has been led by a massive shift toward right-wing extremism over decades. The enemy is us: a failure to."woke" up to our "unwokeness" about our complicities, enablement and contributions to the decline of democracy
Let's define Right Wing and Left Wing so that we can avoid confusion. The far- right is anarchy with the right being defined by less government and regulation with it as decentralized as possible. Left Wing is defined by more government and regulation and more centralization. With these definitions, The Democracy has shifted dramatically left, so that those of us who were Democrats are no longer comfortable with the outcome. There has been more centralization of power in the federal government and more collusion with international businesses. "Wokeness" is just a reconfiguration of the old philosophies that eventuated in communism, socialism, fascism. It denies the individual any agency or responsibility. It is all about boxes: boxes of identity, social status, race, and other groups. I categorically avoid "boxes." Human beings are of divine nature and as such exceed all mortal categories. To put people in boxes is to limit and enslave them. Democracy is the rule of the majority, and our Founding Fathers knew that, so they created a Republic with representative government and a separation of powers so that the gang rule of democracy would be contained.
Let's move beyond the stereotypes of right-wing and left-wing boxes that set up dysfunctional polarizations between centralizing regulations versus decentralizing de-regulations. What about optimal harmonization and balances between decentralizing and centralizing power dynamics based on transparent accountability and equity governance? There are 5 notable exceptions where the majority of US voters did not elect their president. These minority presidents include: John Quincy Adams (1824), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888), George W. Bush (2000), and Donald Trump (2016). John Quincy Adams belonged to the Democratic-Republican Party and the other four Trump belonged to the Republican Party. Is that a fair democracy system? And lastly, your "wokeness" definition is putting people in a box.
Rick, you can't have a conversation where the words have no or nebulous meanings. Left and right are in a continuum not boxes.
It seems that the country has been saved a number of times by the Electoral College System. (Thank you Founding Fathers) Living as a minority in a majority rule system can be hell, not equitable at all. In our country, we have a country vs. city dichotomy, where in city people often create regulations that are not applicable to rural populations. Some of them are so onerous that it would destroy farming and ranching and the result would eventually mean starvation for city-dwellers, who do not know enough to realize the feedback loops. (The political map of the US is overwhelmingly red except for the cities)
I'll give you a chance to explain how a no-box system puts people in boxes. It certainly makes no sense to me.
Jonathan Haidt identified five moral values that form the basis of our political spectrum: left-center-right. Liberals honor the moral values of harm/care and fairness/reciprocity more, while conservatives endorse and use all five moral foundations more equally, including ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. Liberals and conservatives prioritize different moral concerns, which contribute to intractable moral disagreements in the political landscape. This is just one perspective. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19379034/ For a deep dive, read his book, the righteous mind https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_the_moral_roots_of_liberals_and_conservatives?language=en
I agree with your first sentence. Living as a majority in a minority rule system is also hell and more inequitable. Wrt to your second sentence, both/and thinking includes boxes and continuum. "The political map of the US is overwhelmingly red except for the cities" reflect your rural bias, but geographical size does not vote. The political map of the US population is overwhelmingly blue except for the rural areas. Let me provide some boxes for you.
You are correct that I have a rural bias, even though I have lived in cities all my life. The rural communities feed us. They are the hardest working, most compassionate folks that I know, and some of the poorest people in America. That doesn't mean all of them are wonderful, just as some city people are not wonderful. But, without the country, we all starve and everything that happens in cities is of no worth. It is pretty fundamental. I have no desire for your boxes, I work in systems with feedback loops and spirals. I don't know what we can do about cities. I think that they are in decline and people, for the first time in my lifetime, are now fleeing into the country. The problem is: they don't know how to live in the country. That is a major emphasis of Rainbird Enterprises -- to teach people how to be productive country-dwellers.
They are not my boxes (getting personal again). The utility of boxes is to deconstruct stereotypes. We are programmed to make categories, boxes of stereotypes and continua. These sense-making heuristics are about how we learn. How might we learn from upsides and downsides of these different heuristics? How can you create continua without boxes at the end? -- as you have done with your continua- between right-wing and left-wing, and between communism and anarchy. Without boxes at the end, the continua makes no sense. We also have to deconstruct continua to understand the complexities of human nature Continua are a more sophisticated stereotype than boxes. Nature is not made up of a two-dimensional continua. Categorical continua are also imprecise sense-making tools with upsides and downsides. The complexities of human nature are more than three-dimensional.
I find it difficult to see how creating categories (boxes) deconstructs stereotypes (more boxes) It seem to me that there would just be a swapping of boxes. I'm not saying that boxes don't have some utility as long a there is an understanding that the box is temporary and not comprehensive. It is just a place holder while it is awaiting either rejection or integration into a larger understanding of the patterns of complexity.
I find the content of your last comment to be very "Male" in orientation. Content (boxes) is a very Male Superpower. "Females" are not the same. Context (relational patterning) is a Female Superpower. Please see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ6mVumHY9I
p.s. I completely agree with your final sentence.
It seems like a natural outcome of having "lesser of two evils" choices. We have one candidate who talks like a dictator and the other candidate who acts like a dictator while pointing fingers at the other. In realities they are both most likely criminals. What sort of machine has given us this outcome? There is another choice, but the machine doesn't like him because he will shine daylight on their shady operations. Why are we here? Maybe, because through ignorance or malice we each contribute to it. If each of us takes responsibilities for our choices instead of rationalizing our choices, maybe we can get out of it? Maybe!
I would expand the frame to the "lesser of many evils". The machine is the good-old, corrupt crony demoncracy (not a mis-spellng), truth decay, dark money, and a litany of factors. The decline in the US democracy has been led by a massive shift toward right-wing extremism over decades. The enemy is us: a failure to."woke" up to our "unwokeness" about our complicities, enablement and contributions to the decline of democracy