Article on “Generation Binding S’ilence” :: New GlobalDemocracy 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, maintainingand sustaining democratic representation core in line with the peoplespreference is mediated by a dutch reformer. Regarding the conventional way of voting, known as One man One vote incombination with a vast confidence instatistical proof of mass events, this new way of voting relies on parameters that are all at stake in thecollective sphere. The originator named thisnew 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”.

Buildingthis 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, gainfrom it?

·       How do we implement it,

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

·       Can you tell us about somerefinements?

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

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

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

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

And to beclear from my personal engagement isn’t that right in the middle of the Rosewhere I live with my public company Waternet , where the elite positions thecompany as a water-cycle service company serving waste, surface and drinking water and I propose to them tomake it an integrated water-cycle service company where the human factor isfully implemented in the focus of the wisdomboard?

What thought emerged this?

Let mefirst draft the circumstance that sort of struck my life in the time that an ideaentered my visional mind. By occasion I wasemployed with BSO/Origin, a former dutch information and software company, andjust a year after visiting Frances Bicentennial in 1989, I was asked to co-member my political party in the localcouncil. So, what am I saying here … my open mind was in a sort of creativefriction with History, Democracy and Technology.

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

I wasliving in 3 worlds, and in the same period I experienced all kind of communication chaoswith my fellow humans :: sort of loosingmy communication (fibres)…

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

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

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

An illustration document on (collective) decision making qoutated:

“Can two decisions that contradict eachother both be good.?

Surprisingas it may seem the answer is - Yes.

Thereason 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

Goodfor those who made them, as they are determined by different priorities, not byfacts,

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

priorityenabling us to grade all priorities.

Howdoes all this relate to politics?

Ispolitics about decisions or about conclusions?

Dopoliticians decide policy or conclude policy?

Inpolitics 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

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

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

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

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

Politicsis 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

responsibilityfor 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”

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

andthereby systematically promoting public ignorance.

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

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

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

At thatevent an open space conference breeded the term “generation binding”. The termS’ilence is recently attached to those 2 words, replacing the modern scienceterm Matrix.

Let me share another Wilberian Type Quadrant private investigation:

humansense fields (by cosmic resonance)

analogueto the basic perspectives :

analogueto the public functionalities :

I do notsay this is the truth, but it is a way of seeing & sensing a truth …

I sensethis can be a perception on general truth …

The5^th Verb that reverberates is the verb :: force

“Heal”:: lightning

…which resonates on …

“Speak”:: sounding

this verbis like the thumb orchestring the 4 fingers (the Quadrant) …

they areall true and whole partakers in a field of cooperation.

Now, backto the question … I see and cannot think alone …

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

Andthe philosophic notice may be

wegot beyond

Descartes“I think, so : I am”

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

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

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

Convince?

I donotsense the effect of convincing,

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

SYNNERVATE (just g**gle it).

Then, howdo we implement it :: have an international debate on this subject calling allstations to subscribe aglobal joint venture project and facilitate the PEOPLES DIALOGUE . In themeantime we get on building the tools just accepting the rough draftlines asthey are and bring it up. Not only as a paradigm for election procedures atnation or local community scale but also on schools and universities and big companies.

do youget the picture, pivoting all objections to the projects advantage?

Can you tell us about some refinements?

Okay, Iwill tell some:

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

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

3.    A voter cannot be a Votee, andvice versa …

4.    The generation approach definesthe act of the Votee to be recommendable for all humans, may I say here theworking class. So the kind of work the Votee does, i.e. loosing his job andbeing 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 thatexposure.

5.    This system is built upon therequirement that the system works (why not?). So, at the end of a lifetime eachVoter has the same budget on Voting as the Votee = which is defined as ZEROPOINTS (youvote by acting mutual).

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

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

8.    Last refinement here, can be thequest on worldcitizen forum where one is investigating a global democracy andan instrument that guides all involved in a profound dynamic flow includingsynchronisation points as decisions are. Let me drop two options in thisbroadcasting article:

a.     this GBS’ilence paradigmdescribing an alternative for national and local elections replacing the oldone, one man one vote, can be a fundament for the Global Core Election bysplitting the budget in 2 parts: at most 50 percent of the budget may beattached to fellow country votees; and there is no restriction to thepercentage given to outer country votees.

b.    another approach given theGBS’ilence fundament can be the collective GBS’vote. A definition of acollective 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 isfree to arrange a group that can be authentified. ( a rough and fresh idea :)

Is this now at the start of year 2007 theright 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 livethis (hell of a) life … may I invite you to breath it in and out again andagain?

shortnote on the design beyond the article / conclusion

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

this article is widened serving readers planetary vastand various addresses;

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

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

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

(I see this structure as a way of Building Our Bridge Together – lined 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 thoughtemerged this?

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

How do weimplement it, or before that, how do we convince one another on the pivotalesteem?

Can you tell usabout some refinements?

Is this now atthe 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 instrumentalizeelection procedures where masses of partakers as citizen in a democracy spheredecide 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 thatcombines both inner pillars and outer buttresses (taking a cathedralconstruction as metaphor). Where the inner pillars are the partaking members ofsociety, the outer pillars are the universal forces that unify through time andspace. The latter will be in more detail expressed in this article. And if thereader senses this as not being articulated sufficiently, please notify yournotification 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 thedocument as just the “concluding article on a new way of collective citizenrelationship, previously known as the election procedure”, where thebuildingblocks 0 prefaces the whole and guides the reader and the blocks 1 to13 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 andstate / global affairs meet in the decisional position that every now and thencomes up in the co-creative mutual sphere of living together.

0.1     definitions

some definitions on terms may clarify our mutualunderstanding

1 :: purpose & destiny

In the decisional position every partaker, say herecitizen, needs exercise to grow in the most complex situation that mergestowards 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 thisarticle onwards?

When reading this article please take notion of thefact of life that if a human gets 20 currency units to buy 3 products, s/he willsucceed; if s/he gets the budget of 100 units s/he will managed to buy at least11 products. Keep this general human skill in mind as deliberation factor.

2 :: challenge & work

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

To communicate the thing it needs some patience togather 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 thedialogue is the field of dialogue, the interrelational core where the situationto be communicated arises. Mostly the problem is te be solved in the ITSquadrant.

Here the individual work seems to be served by theopen 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 thecollective individuals, the WE, gathered co-operate in the centered space wherethey all unite. This may be propagated by several tools and skills that allindividuals accept and learn, such as group meditations to set thecentersphere.

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

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

3 :: service & devotion

In this design for a new peoples structure and dynamicon how to live in a (better, profound) world, we will see that equality is nota universal principle at the same moment to the same individual. In the core ofthis article, i.e. the voting system as a democracy building vehicle, we haveto forget about the idea brought into peoples mind by the one-man-one-votemechanism. Although it optically seems a very equal situation to allparticipants to get them on the political decision core by selecting arepresentative, seeing more to it from an analysis of the decisional moment …each individual voter was just provoked to force and cut personal favouriteoptions to a dogmatic choice of one person. And at the same time the Statisticalmass of all people should do the teamwork selection for the coalition cut.

So the new system builds on equality seen on alifetime of 13x7 years, where all citizen are equally treated regarding theelection, the decision making core. One will see this later arising in somedrafts.

4 :: form & construction

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

Constructing the new paradigm we have learned that itis a decision in life to step forward and enter the representative core presentas 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 beonly a Voter or a Votee. (notice the difference with the worldwide known One-Man-One-Votethat gives us television shots of candidates voting – for themselves)

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

5 :: radiance & splendor

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

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

In this regard we often forget the circumstances howthe builders of those monuments lived in their time … uncomfortable andquestionable on the human standards of living we “westerns” mediate as ournationwide normative.

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

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

6 :: equality & eternity

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

The gift of the Votee is therefore taken as the goalfor each voter to reach in a lifetime: live the life on the act of presence andaccept the role not to vote in the societal political election event. Whilethis rule is within the system where all people as citizen partake in their upmost collective contribution we can see the passing through of learning powerfrom generation to generation. The flow of life takes over the lead of communityhood.

7 :: attunement & communication

A pivot in the decisional moment is the awareness ofeach human partaking as a Voter (or Votee) that is caused through theimplementation 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 WilberQuadrants facilitate this communication and understanding.

I	It
We	Its

Simply 4 perspectives that can be understood insociety contxt as

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

Here the functional includes the projectional andinstrumental human skills.

The relation quadrant merges by natural and implicitintelligent invitation mind, body and function spheres to the opencommunication realms and to the mutual quality level achievable in theabundance given.

On the decisional core of organisation we can rely on: