QuoTinG dLiberation "But this is Europe, the birthplace of democracy - a continent now (bar the aberration of Belarus) made up entirely of democratic states, where universal suffrage is the rule, where democracy is considered not just as the best form of government, but as a fundamental right.

How then can this apply to the EU whose legislation is replacing many of the laws that used to be passed by national governments? Is it write to talk about “the will of the people”, the central idea underlying democratic systems since the days of Solon of Athens two and a half millennia ago, when there are many peoples? Today we understand democracy as a constitutional law-based system with fair voting, a system that prevents the tyranny of the majority and protects the fundamental rights of individuals and minorities.
But at an international level doesn’t this simply hollow out democracy itself?

Article on “Generation Binding Silence” :: New Global Democracy Formula

Article on “Generation Binding S’ilence” :: New Global Democracy Formula

 

hollland , jan 4, 2007

 

00 / V :: Concluding Article “Shift in Voting :: Democracy Catalyst”

( here the concluding article out of a narration following analysis construct )

 

Since 1990 a new way of managing, maintaining and sustaining democratic representation core in line with the peoples preference is mediated by a dutch reformer. Regarding the conventional way of voting, known as One man One vote in combination with a vast confidence in statistical proof of mass events, this new way of voting relies on parameters that are all at stake in the collective sphere. The originator named this new way of voting, that very likely can be an answer to the Einstein Quest “another way of thinking”, in 2000 “generation binding” and since recent “generation binding s’ilence”, referencing both matrix and spiral mechanisms included in this “mass mind model”.

 

Building this article with the originator in order to reveal the mechanism to the people, let us pass the questions:

·        Why do we need this?

·        What thought emerged this?

·        Where do we, the people, gain from it?

·        How do we implement it,

·        or before that, how do we convince one another on the pivotal esteem?

·        Can you tell us about some refinements?

 

Why do we, people of a nation, need this?

 

I spectate this world and the competition at vast scales beyond the human personal mind that pulses into all our lives, in all our nations = nations that I see as clusters of individuals living in a sort of controlled area, intentionally self-managing, maintaining, sustaining the standards of their people. Now, in those years we seem to be in a kind of harness that doesnot resonate the human creative friction we somehow suppose as general human fundaments. Let me share a comment of Jan Roelofs, a partner working in my learningspace iGovernance & iPolitics (i=integral). He quoted an article about religare groups recognized in an investigation in the Netherlands 2006 – just before the november 2006 elections. The largest group is 26 percent of people, individuals, who quest their own individual spirituality … So this group is not represented by any political party. I can be an option to think that those people do not affirm the system we live in anymore! Do you reader read me, here right now? Okay, I know I am drawing a quick however very strong line if you see it from the side of a booming trendline.

Do the notions of mr. Ken Wilber in Boomeritis synchronize with those trends?

Is there the thought that he is in favour with the city of Amsterdam, in short A’dam (were you aware of that signal of connection)?

And to be clear from my personal engagement isn’t that right in the middle of the Rose where I live with my public company Waternet , where the elite positions the company as a water-cycle service company serving waste, surface and drinking water and I propose to them to make it an integrated water-cycle service company where the human factor is fully implemented in the focus of the wisdom board?

What thought emerged this?

Let me first draft the circumstance that sort of struck my life in the time that an idea entered my visional mind. By occasion I was employed with BSO/Origin, a former dutch information and software company, and just a year after visiting Frances Bicentennial in 1989, I was asked to co-member my political party in the local council. So, what am I saying here … my open mind was in a sort of creative friction with History, Democracy and Technology.

So, what thought emerged the awareness of Shift in Voting :: Democracy Catalyst?

I was living in 3 worlds, and in the same period I experienced all kind of communication chaos with my fellow humans :: sort of loosing my communication (fibres)…

I investigated this all the time relying on my strong beliefs … I even noted down a list of 12 persons that “deserved” my full trust … and every now and then I replaced one by another one = think, confirming my self-development.

So I was all the time practising a new kind of “voting”, which is in my strong belief a core for decision making for all humans partaking the “world order”, the spaceship “earth”.

 

Simple start for the vision was the thought : can everyone get 20 points to assign to a selection of at least 3 individuals that gain by my decision my trust to be in a fruitfull team on political interests. My selection, and the ability to change that selection at any time, should set my focus on the playgrounds of local politics and exercise my brainframe on global affairs.

 

An illustration document on (collective) decision making qoutated:

Can two decisions that contradict each other both be good.?

Surprising as it may seem the answer is - Yes.

The reason is simple: different patients have different priorities; some prefer life with

disability to death, while others prefer death to life with disability. Both decisions are

Good for those who made them, as they are determined by different priorities, not by facts,

knowledge or logic. Different people have different priorities, and there is no absolute

priority enabling us to grade all priorities.

How does all this relate to politics?

Is politics about decisions or about conclusions?

Do politicians decide policy or conclude policy?

In politics people vote. Voting is choosing. To choose is to prefer. People decide what to

prefer. Anyone deciding policy - King, Dictator, President, Prime Minister, Leader, or

ordinary citizen - chooses one option from a number of options. We cannot choose a

conclusion. Answering What to do? is always a decision, never a conclusion.

Decisions are determined by priorities, not by data, knowledge or reasoning. The same facts,

knowledge, and logic, can lead to different decisions due to different priorities.

Politics is decisions, not conclusions. We decide political issues. We do not conclude them.

Those who make a decision are responsible for its results as they could make a different

decision (motivated by a different priority) and get different results.

Politicians whose decisions produce undesirable results usually try to evade their

responsibility for such results by saying I had no choice pretending their decisions were

conclusions. But they voted. Voting is choosing. One cannot choose a conclusion.

 

So, the individual conclusion

“ICH HABE ES NICHT GEWUSST”

may be a notice of lack : lack of an appropriate methodology (system),

and thereby systematically promoting public ignorance.

Where do we, the people, gain from this new kind of thinking?

Honestly, I could not say that or proof the gain for a long time …

Since december 2000 there a pivot happened: the magazine Ode organized an event where the Treaty of Bretton Woods was challenged to “our time”.

At that event an open space conference breeded the term “generation binding”. The term S’ilence is recently attached to those 2 words, replacing the modern science term Matrix.

 

Let me share another Wilberian Type Quadrant private investigation:

 

human sense fields (by cosmic resonance)

See

Feel

Think

Touch

analogue to the basic perspectives :

I

It

We

Its

analogue to the public functionalities :

Behaviour

Physical

Cultural

Societal

 

I do not say this is the truth, but it is a way of seeing & sensing a truth …

I sense this can be a perception on general truth …

 

The 5th Verb that reverberates is the verb :: force

“Heal” :: lightning

… which resonates on …

“Speak” :: sounding

 

this verb is like the thumb orchestring the 4 fingers (the Quadrant) …

they are all true and whole partakers in a field of cooperation.

Now, back to the question … I see and cannot think alone …

So, cooperating we, the people, accept our thinking as the new kind of human rising NOW.

And the philosophic notice may be

we got beyond

Descartes “I think, so : I am”

 

;-) :: ( Heal :: See – Feel – Touch – Think :: Speak )

 

(can you please think about this while seeing your world through our eyes?)

 

How do we implement it, or before that, how do we convince one another on the pivotal esteem?

Convince?

I donot sense the effect of convincing,

I’ld rather stick to the word mr. Peter Merry (center for human emergence – the netherlands) sort of “invented” recently:

 

SYNNERVATE (just g**gle it).

 

Then, how do we implement it :: have an international debate on this subject calling all stations to subscribe a global joint venture project and facilitate the PEOPLES DIALOGUE . In the meantime we get on building the tools just accepting the rough draftlines as they are and bring it up. Not only as a paradigm for election procedures at nation or local community scale but also on schools and universities and big companies.

 

do you get the picture, pivoting all objections to the projects advantage?

Can you tell us about some refinements?

Okay, I will tell some:

1.     at a generation phase (consider life generally split up in 13x7 yearzones) each human has a budget for voting on the national and the local scale, and to that provisionally on the global scale.

2.     Each phase specific budget sticks to the rules that a maximum of 50 percent of the budget may be assigned to the personal favourite votee (term replaces the word public representative or candidate on political issues). Meaning, everyone gets used to bring up a team that cooperates in the common field of dialogue ; say debate when the decisions are mutually made.

3.     A voter cannot be a Votee, and vice versa …

4.     The generation approach defines the act of the Votee to be recommendable for all humans, may I say here the working class. So the kind of work the Votee does, i.e. loosing his job and being available a a public servant, is the ideal situation for all people. Reality says that only 5 percent of the people assign their talents on that exposure.

5.     This system is built upon the requirement that the system works (why not?). So, at the end of a lifetime each Voter has the same budget on Voting as the Votee = which is defined as ZERO POINTS (you vote by acting mutual).

6.     The refinement conclusion is, if I may say this, an act in the line of Praise of Folly, a short story on life by Desiderius Erasmus, it is about Dying, about being in the Fire. So, to all those Votees we, the people say, you are my destiny in the sense of being in the Fire without False Measure (=Voting & Learning to Manage).

7.     While every Voter can maintain the personal budget on the fly of life, it may be of our notice that s/he is less drifting on mediation just before an election Day. So, is this an advantage or is this a disadvantage regarding the seriousness of the communities truth and authenticity? (let my 7th refinement be a quest, okay!)

8.     Last refinement here, can be the quest on worldcitizen forum where one is investigating a global democracy and an instrument that guides all involved in a profound dynamic flow including synchronisation points as decisions are. Let me drop two options in this broadcasting article:

a.      this GBS’ilence paradigm describing an alternative for national and local elections replacing the old one, one man one vote, can be a fundament for the Global Core Election by splitting the budget in 2 parts: at most 50 percent of the budget may be attached to fellow country votees; and there is no restriction to the percentage given to outer country votees.

b.     another approach given the GBS’ilence fundament can be the collective GBS’vote. A definition of a collective GBS’vote can be that the collective is a group of 5 (transnational) individuals that interacts willingly for at least 1 year in a sort of harmonic. Only group budgets can account in the Global Election Core. Any worldcitizen is free to arrange a group that can be authentified. ( a rough and fresh idea :)

Is this now at the start of year 2007 the right time to shift from the old to the new method?

To me, this is the right time ; and really I did not even wait for this moment to come …

I live this (hell of a) life … may I invite you to breath it in and out again and again?

 

 

short note on the design beyond the article / conclusion

to my readers :: author cees de groot / worldcitizen (germspot holland)

this article is widened serving readers planetary vast and various addresses;

which does not serve comfort for those who are aiming for the articles focus.

overcoming this the author suggests to enter on next sequence as a shortcut:

 

first step: 00 / V … second step: I-IV (10-13) … final context: 0-13 & 00 again

 

(I see this structure as a way of Building Our Bridge Togetherlined up by/as a ROPEY )

 

00 / V :: Concluding Article “Shift in Voting :: Democracy Catalyst”

0 :: preface

0.1 definitions

1 :: purpose & destiny

2 :: challenge & work

3 :: service & devotion

4 :: form & construction

5 :: radiance & splendor

6 :: equality & eternity

7 :: attunement & communication

8 :: integrity & harmonic

9 :: intention & valuesystem

10 / I :: manifestation & history

11 / II :: liberation & digestion

12 / III :: cooperation & learning

13 / IV :: presence & dynamics

00 / V :: Concluding Article “Shift in Voting :: Democracy Catalyst”

Why do we, people of a nation, need this?

What thought emerged this?

Where do we, the people, gain from this new kind of thinking?

How do we implement it, or before that, how do we convince one another on the pivotal esteem?

Can you tell us about some refinements?

Is this now at the start of year 2007 the right time to shift from the old to the new method?

 

0 :: preface

Author got a new vision on how to instrumentalize election procedures where masses of partakers as citizen in a democracy sphere decide upon their representatives in the collective core in a sensible way, i.e. in a way that builds democracy and their partaking members in a way that combines both inner pillars and outer buttresses (taking a cathedral construction as metaphor). Where the inner pillars are the partaking members of society, the outer pillars are the universal forces that unify through time and space. The latter will be in more detail expressed in this article. And if the reader senses this as not being articulated sufficiently, please notify your notification or question to s.ace@orange.nl .

 

In order to enable a public entrance the article, attached to the more complex to comprehend design objectives and building blocks, is both in front and in the backstage of this document as a whole. Consider the document as just the “concluding article on a new way of collective citizen relationship, previously known as the election procedure”, where the buildingblocks 0 prefaces the whole and guides the reader and the blocks 1 to 13 are added for those who deepdrill from the article to fundamentals “hidden”, cq. to be clarified in conversation with the author.

 

Some historic data that chronicles this adventure:

  • may 1985 :: nature speaks to the author – crack of a norwegian breen
  • fall 1990 :: the noospheric idea springs off into the mindsphere
  • winter 90/91 :: idea enters a trilogy responding “Has Everything Been Said” ( NRC )
  • dec 2000 :: treaty of noordwijk aan zee gives name to “generation binding” ( ODE )
  • okt 2002 :: European Complexity & Chaos Organization Network facilitates lecture
  • sep 2004 :: studious website GlobalGeniusVoter mediates what has to be revealed
  • year 2005 :: study of mental fitness & Tzolkin & “on courage”
  • march 2006 :: joining “klaar om te wenden” – “ready to ree” foundation & movements
  • dec 2006 :: symposium lucknow, india : Global Democracy (& Just ice)

 

The core of this article is the sphere were people and state / global affairs meet in the decisional position that every now and then comes up in the co-creative mutual sphere of living together.

0.1     definitions

some definitions on terms may clarify our mutual understanding

Matrix

A lineair or cube formed way of expressing …

as language / words / sentences

Spiral

A radial or sphere formed way of expressing …

as style / refinements / message inside the contact

Silence

/ Scilence

/ S’ilence

In this context the author uses the word Silence as a joint venture of both the matrix and the spiral forms deliberating mutual minds – www.globalgeniusvoter.com

Tzolkin

Mayan birth & 13moon calendar & wavespell – Revelation of the 2nd human earth cycle – www.lawoftime.org

NeuReeBah

Practical Meditation to create a Group Mind Centre

Wilber Quadrants

::

i/it/its/we

“But once having split from that wholeness, we can regain or recapture it, but now in a conscious, mature form.” Quoting Wilbers motive for 4Quadrants Meta Language :: (symbol)

 

 

 

1 :: purpose & destiny

In the decisional position every partaker, say here citizen, needs exercise to grow in the most complex situation that merges towards a new vision contributing the solution for the better life.

 

History review leads to the conclusion, often heard, that man did not learn much in the last 5000 years.

How come?

Or skip this queest for a better understanding in this article onwards?

 

When reading this article please take notion of the fact of life that if a human gets 20 currency units to buy 3 products, s/he will succeed; if s/he gets the budget of 100 units s/he will managed to buy at least 11 products. Keep this general human skill in mind as deliberation factor.

2 :: challenge & work

Each new situation that occurs needs a fresh viewpoint in order to communicate the “thing”.

To communicate the thing it needs some patience to gather data and structure it to mutual consumable information.

The work to be done is, as we can agree upon shortly [1], a working on 4 perspective fields :: I – IT – ITS – WE ; more pronounced with the labels BEHAVIOURAL – PHYSICAL – SOCIETAL – CULTURAL. The context where this perspectives facilitate the dialogue is the field of dialogue, the interrelational core where the situation to be communicated arises. Mostly the problem is te be solved in the ITS quadrant.

Here the individual work seems to be served by the open mind on the I-quadrant; on the digestive skills to disolve the physical, the IT-quadrant. On the collective core the work is served by the idea that the collective individuals, the WE, gathered co-operate in the centered space where they all unite. This may be propagated by several tools and skills that all individuals accept and learn, such as group meditations to set the centersphere.

May it be clarified that a Work Process can only be of sense if it Works for all participants.

It can also be stated that where it is often taken for granted to accept the previous situation as a starting point for negotiations, it can also be agreed upon that the situation before was due to mismanaged politics or power systems mutually regretted that they occurred on pain.

3 :: service & devotion

In this design for a new peoples structure and dynamic on how to live in a (better, profound) world, we will see that equality is not a universal principle at the same moment to the same individual. In the core of this article, i.e. the voting system as a democracy building vehicle, we have to forget about the idea brought into peoples mind by the one-man-one-vote mechanism. Although it optically seems a very equal situation to all participants to get them on the political decision core by selecting a representative, seeing more to it from an analysis of the decisional moment … each individual voter was just provoked to force and cut personal favourite options to a dogmatic choice of one person. And at the same time the Statistical mass of all people should do the teamwork selection for the coalition cut.

So the new system builds on equality seen on a lifetime of 13x7 years, where all citizen are equally treated regarding the election, the decision making core. One will see this later arising in some drafts.

4 :: form & construction

In constructing a mutual maze that makes sense in the organic core where humans coexist, the design of the new paradigm builds blocks of 7 years (and 7 levels) as a generational phase in life. Although those phases may not be exact in line with the human living a life, those blocks all together form a maze that leads the way onward simply as steps on a stairway up or downwards.

Constructing the new paradigm we have learned that it is a decision in life to step forward and enter the representative core present as a candidate for other ones to speak for them. In the new paradigm, Generation Binding Silence – GBS** - we agree upon the terms Voter and Votee. This combined with the procedural rule that in an election procedure one can be only a Voter or a Votee. (notice the difference with the worldwide known One-Man-One-Vote that gives us television shots of candidates voting – for themselves)

A 7 steps up and downwards “temple” gives people the mirror of life integrated in a vivid democracy interrelation communication channel. On the metalevel this combines the formula of light, 7, and of sound, 13.

5 :: radiance & splendor

Ancient Civilizations, often visited nowadays on a holiday tour enrichening the spiritual questing crowds dreaming their way back “in a hurry”, inspire individuals deeply.

The radiance of history overwhelms and illustrates the splendour for what human specie can achieve when working together.

In this regard we often forget the circumstances how the builders of those monuments lived in their time … uncomfortable and questionable on the human standards of living we “westerns” mediate as our nationwide normative.

Nevertheless, sensing the sparkling signals revelate the human mind every now and then as wonders to live for in peace and harmony.

The radiance can be sensed as an ever healing vortex energizing the body; as a voice reverberating the body mind anytime speaking or singing and even whistling through the field of silence.

6 :: equality & eternity

The essence of equality has to be in the GBS responding to the gift of universal eternity which needs no human interference.

The gift of the Votee is therefore taken as the goal for each voter to reach in a lifetime: live the life on the act of presence and accept the role not to vote in the societal political election event. While this rule is within the system where all people as citizen partake in their up most collective contribution we can see the passing through of learning power from generation to generation. The flow of life takes over the lead of community hood.

7 :: attunement & communication

A pivot in the decisional moment is the awareness of each human partaking as a Voter (or Votee) that is caused through the implementation of this system will be: the quadrant sense of governance ; governance sense against respectively dialogue, politics, democracy.

Next to this Quadrant 2 references to Ken Wilber Quadrants facilitate this communication and understanding.

 

I

It

We

Its

 

Simply 4 perspectives that can be understood in society contxt as

 

Behaverioural

Physical

Cultural

Societal

 

When we look at the context of domains, we see:

Mind

Body

Relation

Function

Here the functional includes the projectional and instrumental human skills.

The relation quadrant merges by natural and implicit intelligent invitation mind, body and function spheres to the open communication realms and to the mutual quality level achievable in the abundance given.

 

On the decisional core of organisation we can rely on:

Governance

Dialogue

Democracy

Politics

 

All 4 Quadrants are here in line with one another, training the mindset of participants in a constructive collective construction of a new way of dealing with mass, meshes and entropy.

 

So Governance is the stage where each individual acts from the consciouslevel where s/he performs the best skills as a voter or as a votee.

It can be agreed upon that getting to the higher self stage of decision making on the governance core needs exercise. Therefore the GBS also implements the election event as a permanent show. Caution: this permanent show may not be permanent on the output side of the whole. So polls out of the, now permanent, base will only be available on a wider maze, say each month or each quarter. At the outcome side of shifts in peoples confidence in votees, ministres, congresman and other spokesman in the political arena we must agree upon the sphere that the system is not interfering in the formulae of power but preferred over that is: facilitating the communicational mutual signals to voters and votees.

This all facilitating the attunement of the articulations on matters that arise.

8 :: integrity & harmonic

If we draft a scheme of the GBS voting paradigm and mirror it to itself, the picture gives a thing as:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This draft combines a colour system practised by Mr. Don Beck on the theories of Mr. Graves on evolutionary spirals alive and coexisting through our communities, where the turquoise field implies the `whole view` and the other colours build from the middle one, the beige, through all coexisting stages. More of this can be studied elsewhere using keywords SDi , Spiral Dynamics integral and Beck.

In this article this model overlaps the election mode designed and regarded here right in this article.

9 :: intention & valuesystem

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This draft both describes the intention & valuesystem of human living state and planetwise.

How?

Consider the bottom line a the survival sensed stage where we start getting used to our bodies and either feed it to survive the environment or, at elder age, get beyond the body by accepting the starvation that will come along.

The 5 colours purple, red, blue, orange and green represent other evolutionary stages in human cultures all over the planet. Some may not have been visible in some countries or spheres dominated.

The 2 colours yellow and turquoise represent the ecological and the whole view stage that can be seen as the mature one, we human beings as citizens all are striving for to learn.

The system describes the yellow as the local stage where the human lives, and the turquoise stage where the human works. If you reader like to change those verbs, live and work, feel free to do so because at the end of this article you may digest to the conclusion it is all the same within the context of co-operating the planetary sphere: it is both intention and valuesystem while evoluting as human being(s).

10 / I :: manifestation & history

In order to make the changed perception on the election core of democracy spheres clear, some things are to be viewed.

First lets again seen the One Man One Vote formula that from a room with some guys deciding promoted to country spheres where a whole population decides on which representatives may take the lead on speech.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(each block represents a generation stage in life of 7 years)

The given draft represents the One Man One Vote formula where Grey means the particular Generation has No Vote Right and Red implies Generation has a Vote Right by assigning one vote in 4 years to one party, one candidate.

 

The blank generation from 15 to 21 years of age represents the “gap” where some humans start at 18 years to vote and other ones at 21 years, this due to the electionfrequency of 4 years.

 

Stepping out of the Box one rises questions as :

Is it wise in the global community to outcast so many young people from the election core?

Is there any lesson in the voting system while growing older to wise elder?

Is a election calculation system only tested once a day in four years?

 

~~~

 

Do you feel invited to be initiated in the new graph?

F1

 

 

 

 

 

F7

 

 

 

 

 

F13

 

 

 

 

 

 

E7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A13

The yellow colours stand for the local election procedure, which is similar as the nationwide one that is described below except for the beginning, which is 7 years earlier, for the ending , which is 7 years later, and for the mid, which is the dissonant that brings in the Erasmus factor, the wise crux “the praise of folly” as a systematic, on the human contemplative level a humoresque and digesting, advantage.

The turquoise colours resonate on the theories of Clare Graves Spiral Dynamics where this colour signals the “whole view”, the “integral worldview on mankind and relationships” as the author here prefers to articulate this signal:

So what does it mean when a human becomes 15 years of age (3th generation state)?

S/he gets a budget of 20 points to share in the political decision core and at the same time on the individual citizen educational core as integral partaker.

This sharing means that 20 point are assigned to at least 3 Votees. The favourite Votee gets a maximum of 50 % of the voters budget.

What does this mean?

Consider the situation that a man giving 1 point to another one in the old paradigm … What happens?

The voter gives his political soul to the single Votee, and single political party.

Now, in this new design, considering the assignment to a team of personal preferred singles, what happens?

The voter places the higher self in the kernel of this team(!), relating the own stand to the votees chozen in a differentiated teamwork.

 

Examples of 100% fulfilled votings out of a 20 points pocket budget are:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The upper shows a voter having 1 favourite candiate, the second one has two equivalent candidates, the third row shows a voter who manages to bring up a team of 4 and the fourth one of 5 equivalent candidates.

 

For the first time reader this may seem complex, however if we refer to the story of a consumer buying some, say 3, products for say 20 euro … then this new procedure can be accepted in due time. Agreed?

For the next generations to come and the more detailed description of how this can be digested as a working system, see 11 / I :: liberation.

 

The new way of voting is available on any moment that arises to a voter to maintain his personal budget, or political team of singles working together. Here it needs to be said that this availability option refers to the Input side of the Voting Bank; how to handle the Outcome o, the Poll, of this new way of maintaining the political bindings and unbinding on some kind of a frequency base depends upon the collective agreement (month/quarter/year).

11 / II :: liberation & digestion

The graph of the new election core shows two main lines …

F1

 

 

 

 

 

F7

 

 

 

 

 

F13

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A1

 

 

 

 

 

A7

 

 

 

 

 

A13

1.     in 4 steps (C2-F7) a human raises in 29 years from a 20 points budget to a 100 points budget

2.     in 5 steps (F7-A13) a human dissolves in 36 years from a 100 points budget to a 0 point budget

 

This needs some narrations and understanding of life, of the cultural, the societal, the dialogue and the governance perspectives.

The first context of raising in the budget for the electional core seems reasonable because of the natural flow of a learning life where man manages to get about in complexity. He learns the priorities to be set in the individual core, and family or network attached he learns to co-operate in missions or projects. So at the top level he manages to share 100 points to a minimum of 11 Votees. ‘)

 

The second context of loosing budget is in fact the reason why this system liberates human world citizens as a whole organism and digests collaboration for each human. Let’s narrate on the meaning of life …

Remember a constraint for this new way of voting that a Votee is a human being who puts the voter option in the core of acting. So, that human individual renounced his voter budget in favour for being a voters candidate. Which we all honour. And because we honour this decision we all can agree upon the viewpoint that this is a strife for all humans engaged in co-operation. So at the end of our working life we can agree upon the state of levelling with the Votees. This attitude is both referring to the stand in dialogues and digestions and to the voters budget of zero points.

In promoting the acceptance of this last narration we may agree upon the sense that adults over 50 were all there life busy to ratify their ideals in all kind of products and legislations where young ones have to deal with by changing them again. Because the products of life of the older generations are alive in the societal sphere, and of ancient generations even in the cultural sphere, the author here sets the statement that we have to dissolve our community built to the future as even more conscious human being(s).

 

‘) NB. here it is to be announced that the system deals with the absolute minimum of 3 Votees on all levels. A soft penalty of 2 points is then systemwise raised for the number of votees the voter did not manage to select.

Example: if you are in section 5 (age 29-35), you‘ve got a budget of 60 points to share with a minimum of 7 votees; however you can only select 5 votees in your team … then the system gives 2 penalties of 2 point … so the voter can share 4 points less than the budget to the 5 votees selected :: 56 i.s.o. 60. The penalty fee can be understood as a challenge to find all votees matching the personal coalition force.

Another example at the top level of 100 points: the voter only selects 3 votees, then 8 votee options are given soft penalties of 2 points each; voters budget is 84 point in stead of 100.

The meaning of the penalties is to simplify the practise with the system on the one hand and propagate the political game of complexity on the other hand, or rather, system requirement.

12 / III :: cooperation & learning

Several new perspectives on cooperation are stimulated and opened while implementing this new vehicle into the societal sphere of democratic elections.

 

Lets first have a glimpse on those 4 voters … where the same colours represent equal votees. Blanks represent unique votees in the context considering only this group of 4.

A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A relates to voter B by Blue, to C by Green, to D by both Red and Green;

C and D relate to one another by both Green and Turquoise.

While relations concretely expressed build on the attraction of “same family sense”, now the controversial differences may inspire to overcome in conversations challenging ones formulation potentials and sphere for global unity strife.

 

Another cooperational level is emerging … that is the level of generational awareness.

Let us see for some situations that need consideration:

F1

 

 

 

 

 

F7

 

 

 

 

 

F13

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A1

 

 

 

 

 

A7

 

 

 

 

 

A13

How do a 18 year old human and a parent of 53 relate in the political decision core?

The 18 year human is in the 4th year of dealing with 20 points to assign the personal contribution in the collective sphere. Related to the parent s/he realises the fact of life that once s/he will be in the situation of the other, by then dissolving from the higher electional budgets. The parent is theoretically in the E8 box where a 80 points budget on the election circuit is in the pocket to attach to Votees. The former duty pressure to vote however, can now be dissolved if this voter has managed to reach the transformational conscious-level that meets the ultimate ideal of the Votee: no budget, however the awareness to put the deeds to the mouth in the collective sphere is learned (sufficient).

 

Another situation that occurs later in the same relationship:

F1

 

 

 

 

 

F7

 

 

 

 

 

F13

 

 

 

 

 

*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*

 

 

A1

 

 

 

 

 

A7

 

 

 

 

 

A13

How do a 40 year old human and a parent of 75 relate in the political decision core?

Can the reader manage to give an explanation that means a thing on the communion side?

 

In this short but illustrated design narration space for further analysis on relational consequences when this design is implemented in the actual world of democracy as a decisional vehicle agreed upon is not filled, but deliberately kept open for communities that are willing to comment and have dialogue on their intercourse processes.

 

13 / IV :: presence & dynamics

Let me add a weekly notion lectured by mr. Andrew Cohen :

Our Future Potential - Andrew Cohen - 2006 week 51

The intersubjective structures that will hold our future potential don't pre-exist out there in the ether; they are created by real people. And I feel like a big part of my work has to do with finding out what it actually means to create those structures, consciously, together. I don't know where this is all ultimately leading, but I do know for sure that the stability of the new structures is completely dependent upon the actual level of integrity and authenticity of the individuals who are creating them.

Considering this quote in relation with the context talked about in the context and its referential design of a peoples mass decision tool we may say the Generation Binding Silence structure is also of the type “intersubjective” while the vehicle guides people, generations, individuals through the mental time sphere of life. Accepting this analytical state we also have to consider the educational factor of facilitating both inter-human and inter-institutional communication in the two relational radicals of Interior / Exterior and Individual / Collective sphere given as quadrants in the context as a whole. Here all the decisional conversation quadrants governance, dialogue, politics and democracy are addressed.

 

The presence of all the essential co-operational perspectives is acknowledged and kept in a dynamical rhythm. Each day members of society shift from one generation step to another, not each year but each individual once every 7 years on a birthday. Some of those individuals raise on the budget line and other ones dissolve, or by following the system-wise breakdown or by accepting a fact of life and partaking citizen educations.


00 / V :: Concluding Article “Shift in Voting :: Democracy Catalyst”

 

Since 1990 a new way of managing, maintaining and sustaining democratic representation core in line with the peoples preference is mediated by a dutch reformer. Regarding the conventional way of voting, known as One man One vote in combination with a vast confidence in statistical proof of mass events, this new way of voting relies on parameters that are all at stake in the collective sphere. The originator named this new way of voting, that very likely can be an answer to the Einstein Quest “another way of thinking”, in 2000 “generation binding” and since recent “generation binding s’ilence”, referencing both matrix and spiral mechanisms included in this “mass mind model”.

 

Building this article with the originator in order to reveal the mechanism to the people, let us pass the questions:

·        Why do we need this?

·        What thought emerged this?

·        Where do we, the people, gain from it?

·        How do we implement it,

·        or before that, how do we convince one another on the pivotal esteem?

·        Can you tell us about some refinements?

 

Why do we, people of a nation, need this?

 

I spectate this world and the competition at vast scales beyond the human personal mind that pulses into all our lives, in all our nations = nations that I see as clusters of individuals living in a sort of controlled area, intentionally self-managing, maintaining, sustaining the standards of their people. Now, in those years we seem to be in a kind of harness that doesnot resonate the human creative friction we somehow suppose as general human fundaments. Let me share a comment of Jan Roelofs, a partner working in my learningspace iGovernance & iPolitics (i=integral). He quoted an article about religare groups recognized in an investigation in the Netherlands 2006 – just before the november 2006 elections. The largest group is 26 percent of people, individuals, who quest their own individual spirituality … So this group is not represented by any political party. I can be an option to think that those people do not affirm the system we live in anymore! Do you reader read me, here right now? Okay, I know I am drawing a quick however very strong line if you see it from the side of a booming trendline.

Do the notions of mr. Ken Wilber in Boomeritis synchronize with those trends?

Is there the thought that he is in favour with the city of Amsterdam, in short A’dam (were you aware of that signal of connection)?

And to be clear from my personal engagement isn’t that right in the middle of the Rose where I live with my public company Waternet , where the elite positions the company as a water-cycle service company serving waste, surface and drinking water and I propose to them to make it an integrated water-cycle service company where the human factor is fully implemented in the focus of the wisdom board?

What thought emerged this?

Let me first draft the circumstance that sort of struck my life in the time that an idea entered my visional mind. By occasion I was employed with BSO/Origin, a former dutch information and software company, and just a year after visiting Frances Bicentennial in 1989, I was asked to co-member my political party in the local council. So, what am I saying here … my open mind was in a sort of creative friction with History, Democracy and Technology.

So, what thought emerged the awareness of Shift in Voting :: Democracy Catalyst?

I was living in 3 worlds, and in the same period I experienced all kind of communication chaos with my fellow humans :: sort of loosing my communication (fibres)…

I investigated this all the time relying on my strong beliefs … I even noted down a list of 12 persons that “deserved” my full trust … and every now and then I replaced one by another one = think, confirming my self-development.

So I was all the time practising a new kind of “voting”, which is in my strong belief a core for decision making for all humans partaking the “world order”, the spaceship “earth”.

 

Simple start for the vision was the thought : can everyone get 20 points to assign to a selection of at least 3 individuals that gain by my decision my trust to be in a fruitfull team on political interests. My selection, and the ability to change that selection at any time, should set my focus on the playgrounds of local politics and exercise my brainframe on global affairs.

 

An illustration document on (collective) decision making qoutated:

Can two decisions that contradict each other both be good.?

Surprising as it may seem the answer is - Yes.

The reason is simple: different patients have different priorities; some prefer life with

disability to death, while others prefer death to life with disability. Both decisions are

Good for those who made them, as they are determined by different priorities, not by facts,

knowledge or logic. Different people have different priorities, and there is no absolute

priority enabling us to grade all priorities.

How does all this relate to politics?

Is politics about decisions or about conclusions?

Do politicians decide policy or conclude policy?

In politics people vote. Voting is choosing. To choose is to prefer. People decide what to

prefer. Anyone deciding policy - King, Dictator, President, Prime Minister, Leader, or

ordinary citizen - chooses one option from a number of options. We cannot choose a

conclusion. Answering What to do? is always a decision, never a conclusion.

Decisions are determined by priorities, not by data, knowledge or reasoning. The same facts,

knowledge, and logic, can lead to different decisions due to different priorities.

Politics is decisions, not conclusions. We decide political issues. We do not conclude them.

Those who make a decision are responsible for its results as they could make a different

decision (motivated by a different priority) and get different results.

Politicians whose decisions produce undesirable results usually try to evade their

responsibility for such results by saying I had no choice pretending their decisions were

conclusions. But they voted. Voting is choosing. One cannot choose a conclusion.

 

So, the individual conclusion

“ICH HABE ES NICHT GEWUSST”

may be a notice of lack : lack of an appropriate methodology (system),

and thereby systematically promoting public ignorance.

Where do we, the people, gain from this new kind of thinking?

Honestly, I could not say that or proof the gain for a long time …

Since december 2000 there a pivot happened: the magazine Ode organized an event where the Treaty of Bretton Woods was challenged to “our time”.

At that event an open space conference breeded the term “generation binding”. The term S’ilence is recently attached to those 2 words, replacing the modern science term Matrix.

 

Let me share another Wilberian Type Quadrant private investigation:

 

human sense fields (by cosmic resonance)

See

Feel

Think

Touch

analogue to the basic perspectives :

I

It

We

Its

analogue to the public functionalities :

Behaviour

Physical

Cultural

Societal

 

I do not say this is the truth, but it is a way of seeing & sensing a truth …

I sense this can be a perception on general truth …

 

The 5th Verb that reverberates is the verb :: force

“Heal” :: lightning

… which resonates on …

“Speak” :: sounding

 

this verb is like the thumb orchestring the 4 fingers (the Quadrant) …

they are all true and whole partakers in a field of cooperation.

Now, back to the question … I see and cannot think alone …

So, cooperating we, the people, accept our thinking as the new kind of human rising NOW.

And the philosophic notice may be

we got beyond

Descartes “I think, so : I am”

 

;-) :: ( Heal :: See – Feel – Touch – Think :: Speak )

 

(can you please think about this while seeing your world through our eyes?)

 

How do we implement it, or before that, how do we convince one another on the pivotal esteem?

Convince?

I donot sense the effect of convincing,

I’ld rather stick to the word mr. Peter Merry (center for human emergence – the netherlands) sort of “invented” recently:

 

SYNNERVATE (just g**gle it).

 

Then, how do we implement it :: have an international debate on this subject calling all stations to subscribe a global joint venture project and facilitate the PEOPLES DIALOGUE . In the meantime we get on building the tools just accepting the rough draftlines as they are and bring it up. Not only as a paradigm for election procedures at nation or local community scale but also on schools and universities and big companies.

 

do you get the picture, pivoting all objections to the projects advantage?

Can you tell us about some refinements?

Okay, I will tell some:

9.     at a generation phase (consider life generally split up in 13x7 yearzones) each human has a budget for voting on the national and the local scale, and to that provisionally on the global scale.

10.Each phase specific budget sticks to the rules that a maximum of 50 percent of the budget may be assigned to the personal favourite votee (term replaces the word public representative or candidate on political issues). Meaning, everyone gets used to bring up a team that cooperates in the common field of dialogue ; say debate when the decisions are mutually made.

11.A voter cannot be a Votee, and vice versa …

12.The generation approach defines the act of the Votee to be recommendable for all humans, may I say here the working class. So the kind of work the Votee does, i.e. loosing his job and being available a a public servant, is the ideal situation for all people. Reality says that only 5 percent of the people assign their talents on that exposure.

13.This system is built upon the requirement that the system works (why not?). So, at the end of a lifetime each Voter has the same budget on Voting as the Votee = which is defined as ZERO POINTS (you vote by acting mutual).

14.The refinement conclusion is, if I may say this, an act in the line of Praise of Folly, a short story on life by Desiderius Erasmus, it is about Dying, about being in the Fire. So, to all those Votees we, the people say, you are my destiny in the sense of being in the Fire without False Measure (=Voting & Learning to Manage).

15.While every Voter can maintain the personal budget on the fly of life, it may be of our notice that s/he is less drifting on mediation just before an election Day. So, is this an advantage or is this a disadvantage regarding the seriousness of the communities truth and authenticity? (let my 7th refinement be a quest, okay!)

16.Last refinement here, can be the quest on worldcitizen forum where one is investigating a global democracy and an instrument that guides all involved in a profound dynamic flow including synchronisation points as decisions are. Let me drop two options in this broadcasting article:

a.      this GBS’ilence paradigm describing an alternative for national and local elections replacing the old one, one man one vote, can be a fundament for the Global Core Election by splitting the budget in 2 parts: at most 50 percent of the budget may be attached to fellow country votees; and there is no restriction to the percentage given to outer country votees.

b.     another approach given the GBS’ilence fundament can be the collective GBS’vote. A definition of a collective GBS’vote can be that the collective is a group of 5 (transnational) individuals that interacts willingly for at least 1 year in a sort of harmonic. Only group budgets can account in the Global Election Core. Any worldcitizen is free to arrange a group that can be authentified. ( a rough and fresh idea :)

Is this now at the start of year 2007 the right time to shift from the old to the new method?

To me, this is the right time ; and really I did not even wait for this moment to come …

I live this (hell of a) life … may I invite you to breath it in and out again and again?

 



[1] We slice through the design more easily with the catalyzing construction delivered by Ken Wilbers 4 Quadrants, to be learned in depth at Integral Institute and his work. Those 4 Quadrants deliver 4 perspectives out of the radical lines interior/exterior and individual/collective crossing one another delivering the 4 quadrants communicational together in a contextual sphere at stage. In order to remind ourselves being connected in this articlesphere it is recommendable to recognize the “ :: “ , 4 dot Quadrants as a guiding symbol to a universal integral language grammar.