And now what?

Yes, and now what? Good question. If I only knew.

For those of you who may not be aware, the number 7 plays a significant role in our lives. In the Middle Ages, a child became an "adult" at 7 because s/he could distinguish between right and wrong. Later, we moved decided that 14 was the age at which an individual could decide about his/her own beliefs as s/he had reached the age of reason. Even later, we decided that one was actually an adult when one turned 21, and a lot of places think so even today. Humans are, it is true, subject a 7-year cyclic development pattern, and in our tradition, we have 7 days of the week as well. In the Ancient World, there were (and still are) 7 visible planets ... the list goes on and on, but I believe you get the point.

What many more of you may not be aware of is that each individual's year is divided into 7 phases as well. It starts when you're born and it stops when you die. These aren't biorhythms in the true sense of the word, just phases that, surprisingly enough, are analog to the phases we experience in our 7-year developments throughout life. If I were to give you "key words" to associate with each of these phases, they would be (1) Action, (2) Consolidation, (3) Transition, (4) Stabilization, (5) Creation, (6) Harmonization, and (7) Rest. It is an interesting exercise to reflect upon one's own life in terms of these key words and one's own development over the years. It is also interesting to think about when one did what in one's current life and how those actions/deeds/accomplishments reflect those key words as well. Be that as it may, I have found that these cycles play a unignorable part in my own life, and as fate would have it, I have just entered my own 7th cycle for this year as well. I don't know about you, but I find myself in dire need of recharging my physical and mental batteries starting 6-7 weeks before my birthday. And that's where I am right now.

In all this talk of change, lately, I believe it is time for me to make a few changes myself. Besides begin in need of a bit of rest, I feel the very strong need to start bringing a few things together, harmonizing them if you will, in general. What this means in very practical terms is that here, where the Celtic New Year is upon us (a mere coincidence, I can assure you) -- after all, it is Halloween (which is hardly a holiday in these parts, though I know my American friends and acquaintances will be outdoing themselves), which marked the transition from the light to the dark part of the year -- I shall be slowing down a bit.

For the past couple of years, I've been posting every second day. The next post, however, and those that that follow will be in three-day intervals for a while ... at least until the end of the calendar year (and isn't it interesting just how many "calendars" we each have). I need more time to think. I want more time to reflect. I feel it; there is reason for it; it makes sense (to me); so, I don't see why I should fight it.

I hope all of you who have been true to my blog thus far will continue to be so. (You are part of a very small -- but as I like to think, very select -- group of individuals. You are, of course, free to share these posts with whomever you may please.) I thought it only fair to let you know of the change.

As our good friend Heraclitus was fond of saying, panta rhei.

A good example?

"Set a good example" is what my dear, sweet mother (God bless her soul) used to tell me. I'm sure she thought she was encouraging me to play the game, to toe the line, to fit in, to not make waves, to not draw undue attention to myself, or maybe even to brave the ire of my peers while reaping the acknowledgement of TPTB. I don't fault her for it. She, like most of us, was a product of her times. It was good to obey. But, as we found out later, those giving the orders were not above reproach. As we've moved down the historical timeline, we've found out as well, too many of those who have the say should really not be saying anything at all.

Nevertheless, since I've been encouraging everyone else to speak up, to get involved, to start thinking about what is and is not important to them, it seems only fitting that I make a start. That is the "good" example I will set. Here's a partial list, of course in no particular order and linked to key words which are simply a shorthand for the issues involved, of things I cannot abide:

• hypocrisy - this is really nothing more than a double standard; if what you think/believe/want/do is not what everybody should think/believe/want/do, give it up; this also includes (along with "dishonesty" (see below)) "underhandedness";
• dishonesty - which may be a combination of everything listed thus far, but it does have the added dimension of lying to ourselves as well as to others;
• intolerance - which applies across the board (gender, lifestyle, political persuasion, culture, "race", etc.), and if you don't know the difference between "tolerance" and "acceptance", you need more help than I can give you;
• violence - domestic, legal, psychological, foreign-policy, yes, the list is endless, are all the same; if you think any kind of violence is OK, you don't understand the concept;
• obsequiousness - (I know, I know, a big word ...) that is, easily yielding to and fawning over (self-chosen) authority; emphasizing the "rules" and a "law-and-order" mentality should be included here;
• cowardice - which, of course, includes being silent when one should speak up, not speaking truth to power, sitting on your butt when you know you should be doing something, and more;
• egotism - which has, in these times, mutated into a kind of "autism", one that insults real autistic individuals; you're just self-absorbed and you're not that important; in fact, you're not important at all;
• greed - that is, simply thinking you are entitled to more than anyone else; also thinking "having" is more important/better than "being"; and
• exclusionary faith - if you think you've got the right one and everybody else doesn't, you don't have any faith at all; you're most likely just being hypocritical on top of everything else;

Now you know. What more can I say?

Are we going to do it or go for it?

Sometimes things boil down to simple choices. This is one of those times. I'm not talking about an instant, a mere individual "now". No, the choice itself is simple enough, but it's timing is, well, a bit more profound. Any halfway reasonable person recognizes that we, at least as denizens of the modern, Western World, but maybe even humanity as a whole, are at a watershed. What we decide to do is going to affect us for a long time to come.

No, I'm not going Chicken-Little on you. I'm quite calm and collected, as a matter of fact, even though there are more than enough "reasons" for me to be simply ranting and raving. It's not about one thing, no single issue. We've painted ourselves into a corner and the choice is whether we want to get out of it or not. If we simply sit or stand around till the paint dries, the house will have been torn down by the authorities and we'll just get carted off for trespassing and obstruction. Nobody really likes to talk about it because too many others will just shout you down or declare you paranoid, but if you just stop, take a deep breath, and look around you will a clear, detached, unemotional view, you realize pretty quickly that we're in over our heads.

Too many things are broken to be fixed: you can't fix the government, because the game is fixed; you can't fix the economy, because the game is rigged; you can't save the environment, because of the fixed and rigged games; you can't expect justice in a world made up of just ourselves and our think-alikes; you can't get informed by watching Faux News or its equivalents; you can't get smart by only having your own opinions; you can't ask for or demand solutions to problems that only suit you; you can't be inclusive if you're an isolationist; you can't be tolerant if you're an exclusionist; you can't expect change if you're not willing to change yourself. And that, dear friends, is where we are.

This is, believe it or not, my 400th post. In almost all of them, I have been saying the same thing, but the responses I get (mostly offline, that is true ... or via other media) tell me that I'm not getting through. I am surprised how many people agree with most of what I have to say, and I'm just as surprised how unwilling almost all of them are to do anything about it. And that, dear friends, is the crux of the matter.

It is all well and good that you think something, but it doesn't make a hill of beans of difference unless you do something about it. If you're only interested in what you can get out of it, how you can benefit, then it is better that you do nothing at all. Too many of you -- maybe even most of you -- are willing to complain, fret and moan, and just about everyone I encounter has a bevy of "reasons" why they are incapable of doing anything about anything.

I have neither tolerance of nor understanding for that. It's a cop-out, as we used to say; it's merely an excuse, as we say in Standard English. The defining character of this moment is either putting up or shutting up.

Time to pack it in?

Sometimes I'm sure we all feel like there's just no use in fighting anymore. Things aren't getting better. What is any one of us, individually, supposed to do? After all, each of us is just one person. That's right. But, so what?

This may come as a surprise to some of you, but we humans are different from our animal cousins in a very important way: we can talk. We can communicate both concretely and abstractly. We can question and we can explore. Our language abilities give us a tremendous leg up in the evolution game, to say the least. But it is this special skill that we use to little.

There are a couple of preconditions to making talking effective, however. (For a lot of us, this is the hard part.) First of all, not everyone thinks like we do. Not everyone sees the world like we do. Not everyone believes the things that we do. And that's OK. In fact, it's an advantage, collectively, if we allow it to be. Second, everyone is entitled to their opinions, but not all opinions are created equally. Opinions should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it, so just having one means nothing. We have to learn to provide support for the opinions that we have. Third, we have to be open to difference. This means not only allowing for other opinions, but also for other ideas and approaches. Sometimes it's not one thing but a combination of a variety of things that provides the best solution to a problem. Fourth, we have to be patient. We need to allow others to express themselves just as we want to be allowed to express ourselves. But, fifth, related to this, we have to learn to listen. I don't mean we have to find out what's wrong with what someone else is saying but strive to understand what s/he really is saying. Language is by its very nature ambiguous. We can think we've said something clearly but it may still be ununderstandable to someone else.

In other words, we need to relearn how to talk with one another, not just talk to, and especially not talk at ... no we need to practice talking with one another again.

Some of us are able to do this within our families, though Lord knows there are enough families in which this doesn't happen anymore. Some of us can do this with our close friends, but have trouble doing it with strangers, and this brings us to a sixth precondition, namely, all talk is personal. Every time we open our mouths (or write something like this blog) we are sharing part of ourselves with others. This takes a certain amount of courage. We can't be afraid to share.

The seventh, and final, precondition to be met is we need to be on the look out for what's common, not what separates. These days we focus too often what makes us different, not what makes us alike. For as different as we are, we humans have an awful lot in common. It is the commonalities that we find strength. In the differences we can find new ways to make the strengths stronger.

Why do I think this is an answer ... something as simple as learning to talk with one another again? I believe I'm on the right track for the simple reason that it is very easy to say, but we all know, it is extremely difficult to put into practice. That's a dead giveaway.

Afraid of the game?

Don't get me wrong. I know you are all readers of integrity and courage, of moral fortitude and strength of character. Still, I know, and you know that deep down, we shake in our boots. While putting on a calm, determined and fearless countenance to the world, inside we're mush. If we're honest, we're afraid of everything.

If we're working, we're afraid of losing our job because we can't live without the next paycheck. If we're unemployed, we're afraid no one will want us and we'll be forced onto welfare or worse. If we're healthy, we're afraid we'll get sick, especially if we're Americans (because we know a serious illness is the end of life as we know it). If we're successful, we're afraid we'll fail. Some of are afraid of appearing weak in any way, shape or form. If we have anything, we're afraid someone will steal it or tax it away. We are afraid of what the terrorists are up to. We are afraid of being mugged, raped, or killed just walking down the street. We don't like to admit it, but we're a fearful lot.

I hear this undercurrent in almost every discussion I have, with just about anyone, and the actual subject of conversation doesn't make the slightest bit of difference at all. The truth of the matter is, we live in constant and -- too often -- abject fear. We spend the better part of our waking hours just whistling in the graveyard. (You remember those times as a kid, having to walk through the graveyard at night. What do you do? You whistle. Why? Because even though you know there is no such thing as ghosts, a bit of sound overcomes the oppression of silence and the maybe-if-I-make-noise-they'll-leave-me-alone.) Oh, it's not reasonable and rational behavior, but we do our best to give it that veneer. Hey, whistling is harmless, after all.

This is what amazes me about life these days. We're supposed to be such an informed, enlightened, intelligent society. We Westerners have allegedly put all superstition behind us. We live in modern, democratic societies, where freedom is writ large, where liberty is a God-given right. Yet, we give up those rights voluntarily, we transfer our personal power to others willingly, and we shut up rather than put up. If we speak out, others will think we're jerks. If we're too adamant, others will think we're bullies. If we're passionate about issues, others will think we're obsessed. We worry a lot about what our neighbors think of us. Why? Because we never really talk to them about anything that matters, because most topics -- religion (most likely), politics (most definitely) -- are just taboo. After all, there's always the weather, the local sports teams, vacation plans, and yard work.

TPTB know this and they play on it readily. They can feed it (after all, they control the media and who goes searching for alternative news sources), they legislate it, they convince us that they are helping us out. They're not. They never have, and they never will.

It's a pretty hopeless situation, when you get right down to it. Well, actually, it's just sad.

But, but, but ...

Now, I know what a lot of you are thinking, and I'm no mind-reader. You're wondering just how whacked I must be to come up with a crazy idea like that. Maybe it's something in the water. Maybe, and maybe not. I'm a big fan of principles and this is one that is very, very fundamental.

We may complain about our representatives in government, but we elect them. We say the system that only counts votes that are cast is fair. We agree that the minority should have the say. Do you see how quickly we get from agreeing to hey-that's-not-what-I'm-saying? The current democratic systems that are in place -- regardless of how democratic they appear on the surface -- are all rigged to promote minorities. Those who are selected to do the governing quickly come to believe that it is they who should decide. They are all charged with voting their consciences, which is fine, in principle, but if their conscience is at odd with the so-called will of the people, then what? And, what if a substantial group gets together and decides that we don't need all these freedoms anyhow because too many people don't know how to handle it. Is it OK for those elected representatives to simply imbue themselves with more authority than they should and make decisions that are no longer in the interest of those they represent? Well, that's how it works now.

For all the complaining that I hear about "government", I rarely hear the complaint that we, the citizenry, are too complacent. I don't know of an elected body that doesn't have everything that most of us would like to have: full healthcare coverage, a good salary, an excellent retirement plan even if you don't work at your job a whole lifetime, expense accounts, reduced-priced services just for you ... the list goes on. How can we with good conscience say that they deserve all this if the theory says that these people are working for us. Isn't that the idea of democracy to begin with: the elected representatives are "servants of the people"? Well, yes, that's the theory, but welcome to reality.

The mere fact that they do what they do and get away with it and all the rest of us do is complain is pretty substantial evidence in my book that we have given our power to them ... freely, willingly, knowingly. You might want to argue about that last one, of course, but if you buy into the system, if you think that the way it is all set up is fair and just and equitable, if you glorify your founding documents more than you care about your neighbors, well, then I have to agree with George Carlin: you get the government you deserve.

There are others of you who will be quick to point out that if you get too far out of line, if you question the system too directly, the authorities will be at your door. You're right. Americans, for example, have sat back and allowed the "system" to remove habeus corpus, detain citizens as terrorists on mere suspicion, to restrict freedom of speech, to establish a system in which money replaces justice and democracy, and generally to put the populace on the defensive. America, particularly in the wake of the Occupy movement, has shown that it is not adverse to using excessive force to quell peaceful dissent, and I refuse to even get started on how they are conducting their foreign policy these days. What is more, too many other governments are willing to go along, if not try out some of these shenanigans themselves.

There comes a time, however, in every one of our lives, when we have to ask ourselves how we feel about power. We can't avoid it. We have to decide how to deal with it.

The name of the game

It's encouraging to know that there is a chance we may get out of the current game, but I'm not placing any bets at the moment, nor am I ready to start a betting pool. Still, there are glimmers of light here and there, and I, for one, believe we should acknowledge and encourage every one we see. Nevertheless, if things are going change for real and permanently (which they are anyway, but we still have a chance to participate, if we want to), it is helpful to get a full grasp of the concepts involved. For this reason, a not-so-subtle shift of focus ...

Truth be told, there is a game, and it's the same one that's been played since as far back as we can collectively remember. It's name is Power. It's an odd game actually, because it only works if everyone shares the same beliefs. It's not a real game, but it is nevertheless real. It is not a fair game in reality, but it is in theory. It's a mind game, but one in which brilliance, intelligence or even wisdom aren't of much use. It's a subtle game, and it's deceptive. Consequently, we need to keep our wits about us, and we need to understand how we got to where we are.

No, no, no reason to stop reading. I'm not going to bore you with a traditional history lesson. Instead, I want you to stop for a moment and think about the following statement:

Only if we grant power to something can it have power over us.
- Jean Gebser

It's not an easy thought, I know. You have to keep going back to it and reflect upon what he is actually saying. One thing I'm pretty sure he's saying, though, is that power is not A given, it is simply given. And now, even more of you are probably asking yourselves: just what is he talking about? Fair enough. Let me try to explain.

Let's go back to the things I've talked about in the past few posts. Why is it that politicians can't agree? Why is it that the coalition talks in Germany are so hard to move forward? Why do we all feel so helpless most of the time in the face of political realities? It's simple, actually, because we've given up our own power and transferred it to others. The reason that the alternatives I spoke of in the last post seem to be making headway is that those involved are simply ignoring those who think they have they say. And, why do they think they have the say? Because we have more or less told them that they do. The problem is really not the politicians. The real problem is us ... or at least some of us, at least those who are more than willing -- for whatever reasons -- to grant their power to someone/something else.

Don't delude yourself into thinking this is an easy thought to grasp. It looks simple enough, I'll grant you that, but it takes a bit of time and effort to actually penetrate into its actual meaning. When you get it, though, it's a long overdue "AH HA", I assure you.

Same old game?

Well, well, well ... who would have thought that the Americans would have pulled it off? I would, and did. So we've got another six months of breathing space till the gyrations begin again. If there ever was a demonstration of the "game", this was it.

Though the US will now pay its bills and borrow more money, nothing has been resolved. The spin machines are operating at full power; everybody's responsible for saving the country, if not the world; the others were responsible for such reckless behavior; not a single thing has changed. There was nothing learned (other than maybe the other guy just might not cave when you expect); and there's always another day. In this case, it's a few months, but what difference does that make in the scheme of political things?

What the shutdown and standoff made crystal clear, though, is that whatever they are doing in Washington, it has nothing to do with what any of us might want or what might be of benefit to any of us little people. This isn't a simple matter of Washington being out of touch, it is about the fundamental principle of modern government: it's about those who govern, not those who are governed, and governing has lost its meaning of service to the general population, it is only about power. The Tea Party will continue to try to stop the Affordable Care Act, the Republicans will look for more hostages for the next round, and the Democrats will strut and gloat for a while and then realize that they, too, have to get ready for the next round. It starts in the spring.

On this side of the Atlantic, the expected has become news as well. The Greens and the CDU/CSU admitted they don't have enough in common to form a government, but, just as expectedly, maybe they could find enough should the SPD not manage to get together with Merkel & Co. The front door was closed, the back door unlocked; and you let the other guys step forward to take the hit for success or failure. We all know it's more the latter than the former. Though the polls indicated that the German people wanted a Grand Coalition, it's becoming increasingly clear that nothing will happen, no problems will be resolved and the ruling parties will spend the next four years fighting over who is really ruling, and nothing further will be resolved.

It is time to simply recognize and openly admit that they are going to do their thing, no matter what the rest of us want, and each is going to continue looking out for their own interests not ours. We're all faced with the same problems: crumbling infrastructure, an unbearable debt burden, upward pressure on unemployment, decaying and increasingly obsolete and inappropriate educational systems, aging populations, impending environmental disaster, decreasing standards of living, and as good as no future for our children, but what are TPTB in Germany and the US doing? Fundamentally the same thing: arguing amongst themselves as to who has the most say in doing what they want, not what the people might want, or even what might actually need to be done.

I would say the disconnect between the governing and the governed is pretty much complete. In all that's going on, what I miss more than anything else is even a hint that it's about the pursuit of the general welfare on the basis of anything even slightly resembling democratic processes.

But, it does look very much like the old adage is true: people get the governments they deserve.

Just a techno-game?

I'm sure there are any number of you who immediate responded to what I've been advancing that this is what you've been saying all along. The Internet, the Web, changes everything. Free access to information and the wider distribution of technology is going to save us all. Actually, it isn't. It's not even about the technology. It's about what you do with it. TPTB, of course, are trying to bend it to their advantage, and there are lots and lots of folks going along, but the momentum is actually with the rest of us.

Yes, it is becoming more and more difficult for TPTB to keep things secret. Yes, there are more and more people communicating with each other. And yes, much too much of this communication takes place simply via the technology. But that is changing. There is a growing number of people who are using the technology simply to find new ideas and then are communicating them in good old-fashioned manner -- that is, face-to-face -- with people in their communities. We learn about the power of mass movements on the Internet (for example, Occupy or Arab Spring) and we start wondering if that wouldn't work in downtown Topeka or in Dresden or in Milan, or in Smalltown or Kleinstadt. We become aware of the massive influence of huge international corporations, how politics here, there, and everywhere are more or less corrupt and we start asking ourselves if it is worth the effort to get involved at all. We start to see that while the problems of the others are not exactly the same, they are terribly similar, that there are analogies than can be made, and that maybe, just maybe, the others are more like us than we thought. We ask ourselves whether what they've done maybe we could do too.

Obviously, I'm not talking about mass movements (yet) or mind-changing attitudes (yet) or illuminating insights (yet). I'm merely pointing out that in addition to the widespread apathy that so many complain about, there are a good number of people, everywhere, who are simply acting as if the system as it is and the mainstays of that system (that would be TPTB) don't matter. They don't want to fight city hall nor do they want a new herd of do-nothing politicians in Washington or Paris or Berlin. No, they simply want to get on with their lives the best they can and they are finding others of like mind and interests, not halfway around the world, but down the block, if not simply next door.

There is a growing number of people who realize that here and now is more important than then and there, that we should have more say in what affects us directly. There is a growing realization that if my neighbors are doing OK, I'm probably doing OK, too. That there is more than enough to do right here where we are that has a bigger impact on their lives than hollow political promises and self-centered and self-interested entities far away.

The upside to our modern communication technologies is that we can be inspired by the successes of others who may be far away, and we can also learn from the mistakes and failures that others make. This access helps us realize that we are not alone with our problems, but the only ones that can solve them is us. The downside is that we might think that we can use these technologies to affect things far away, but we can't, nor should we. We humans were built and programmed for small-scale, near-environment success. We can handle groups of probably not more than 150 individuals, our families counted among them. But, we have larger overlaps between our groups than we realize, but we're awakening to that fact as well.

Maybe small is beautiful after all.

The rules of the game?

We've been ruled by minorities for as long as we can collectively remember. You can call that minority the "aristocracy", the "elite", the "select few" ... it really doesn't matter. The reasoning changes, but the end result is the same.

There was a time perhaps when might made right, when the strongest or toughest managed to convince enough other strong or tough guys that they could simply take charge. You create a warrior society and a warrior culture and convince others -- perhaps at the point of a spear or the with the barrel of a gun -- that this is way it was meant to be. Others, who were perhaps a bit more subtle and clever, managed to convince the rest that knowing things, like when the floods would come or how to build pyramids or the like, made you special or different in some way. Knowing how fickle the masses were, especially since they were denied this essential knowledge, you get a front (wo)man and call him or her King or Empress or whatever, but you link them up to the divine and you've got yourself a good deal. You pull the strings but someone else takes the fall. Combinations of these approaches are, of course, not only possible, but, as history has shown, probable.

But, as our teachers and forebears would have us know, we "progressed", we realized that "everyone" should have a say in what happens to them. The trouble is, that was the pitch, but it certainly wasn't the process. There are any number of reasons why we should choose someone to represent us, why we shouldn't speak for ourselves: complexity, long distances, sheer numbers of people involved ... the list goes on and on. The end product, however, is the same as those justifications that had gone before. It was no longer the will of God, let us say, it was the will of the people. That's the way everyone wanted it, and if they didn't want it that way, well, it was clear that they were troublemakers, nay-sayers, undemocratic, and Lord knows what else. One thing was for sure, they needed to be shut up, and shut up they were.

There are a good number of people who actually believe that this is the natural order of things, but what do they have to base their belief on? That it's always been that way? That there are so-called alpha-animals and leaders of the herd? Yes, we've tried everything, from nature to nurture to biology to psychology (most people want to be led by others). Yes, there has been a never-ending stream of reasons why the few should have the say and the many should do what they're told. If we take a real close look at history, though, what we find is an ever-increasing difficulty to find reasonable and convincing justifications. Why? Because all the ones we have had thus far have been in the interest of those who think them up, and it is becoming harder and harder to make it clear that this is not the case.

For the longest time, it was possible to obscure, obfuscate, divert attention, cloud and confuse with ease. The widespread use of communication technologies is enabling more and more people to communicate -- often in silly and senseless ways -- with more and more people. There is simply lots and lots of information flying about our ears all the time. It is becoming harder and harder to keep things secret.

The genie is out of the bottle.

A game of change?

If it seems like I have been belaboring the themes of competition and perception over the past few posts, it is only because I have been. We like to think that we live in a terribly complicated, overwhelming world, but in fact, beneath the surface of seemingly unfathomable detail and confusing connections, there is a nice strong layer of principle that can help us make sense of the seeming chaos on the surface. We get confused by all that's happening on the surface because we are distracted by everything that is happening there. If we can learn to look beyond the distractions, we find that things are actually much simpler, and perhaps easier to deal with. We, as a species, have come to believe certain things, but just like our example of the rising and setting sun, what we believe may not reflect reality, so we need to stop for a moment and try to look beyond the apparent details to what is really going on.

The recent government shutdown in the US and the almost ludicrous coalition negotiations in Germany have really hammered this point home with me. In the US, a small portion of one party is forcing the whole party to act in that small portion's interest. The whole party, which received the minority of votes in the last election has been trying to undo that election since it happened a year ago. The only ones who suffer because of this, of course, are the people. The shutdown is hitting those hardest who need government support the most. In other words, it's not about the good of the people, what is best for the country, rather it is simply a small minority forcing everyone else to go along, though, fortunately, this time, they are getting resistance.

The situation is not all that different in the German coalition negotiations. How many of which parties meet to start discussing possible options and how many ministers will go to which party in the government that would be formed are all paramount. There is a lot of posturing about who "won" and who "lost" the election ... again, framing the discussion in competitive terms. None of the groups who met have actually won anything, there were more people who didn't vote for them than those who did, but here too, it's not about the good of the people or what is best for the country, rather there are small minorities trying to force everyone else to go along. Unfortunately, there is not as much resistance as there needs to be.

The bottom line is that we are still being ruled by minorities. I'm not going to go so far as to say that democracy has failed. I don't think we've ever really experienced it to find out. We have been erroneously led to believe what TPTB want us to believe, and most of us haven't resisted enough to think for ourselves. Hey, as long as everything is going fine, and I'm getting what I think I deserve, then why should I make waves. The next thing you know someone's going to show up and take it away. But what if what I think I deserve isn't what I deserve at all? What if there were others who were more deserving? And while we're at it, how do we figure out who deserves what to begin with? In the competitive environment that we have come to believe is the "natural" one, only a few can win and the vast majority must lose. That is the simplest description of how we are managing things?

Two million years of human existence, and we're still being bamboozled. How proud we must be.

Is there really even a game?

Much of what has existed in all our lifetimes can be considered games: economics (saturated with game theory), politics (winning/losing as primary metaphor), education (guessing what the teacher wants), or even religion (betting on believing in the "right" one). Truth be told, "game" is a metaphor to describe how these "systems" function. But what happens, when nobody wants to play anymore?

Just doing your own thing, in the face of or even in spite of conventional wisdom, is a way of opting out of the game. Maybe the alternatives being developed are games as well, but they strike me as all having a feature that most games do not have: cooperation. Games are primarily about winning and losing (which is why politics is the most obvious of the currently existing games), they are competitive (enter economics), they contain elements of chance that need to be minimized (education) and they entail a certain risk (religion). Well, there is risk outside of games, just as there are elements of chance (luck) in every aspect of our lives. What remains, then is the competition aspect.

There are times and places for competition, to be sure. Adolescents are full of it, and they most likely need to be. Grown-ups get over that; elders recognize it for what it is. One of the reasons we buy into the competition myth is that there was a time in the history of humanity when it appeared to be a natural and good thing. You might have guessed, I believe that was in the adolescent phase of our development ... I happen to think it's time for us, as a species, to simply grow up. In other words, competition is not a necessary part of most aspects of our lives.

Families, work environments, clubs, churches, groups of all kinds only function when everyone pulls together. Even on a larger scale, groups of families constitute a neighborhood, similarly interested clubs benefit from exchange. Cooperation is an essential part of their successful functioning. What we are finding is that cooperation is beneficial in more and more areas. Our problem is that we don't have a lot of experience with cooperating because we've too long been conditioned to believe that we have to compete.

Competition is based on seeing differences in others and emphasizing that difference. Cooperation is based on seeing similarities in others and emphasizing what all have in common. Considering that the world is getting smaller every day and that we are discovering more and more how similar we are as human beings, it makes sense to shift our thinking somewhat to a cooperative frame of mind. How can I (we) help someone else? How can others help us (me)? What can we do together that we can't do alone? These are the questions that simply have to take priority.

The good thing is that there are lots of folks who are just doing it. They are getting together, they are cooperating, and they are becoming increasingly visible because what they are doing is good, right, and successful, even according to standards that they themselves may not consider sacrosanct. A world in which cooperation plays a bigger role is fundamentally different from one based on competition. All transition is difficult, but the advantage of becoming more cooperative is that there is a pretty good chance that you'll find someone who can give you hand.

Changing the game?

Before some of you go apoplectic and smell the air of revolution in the air, let me reassure you that I'm not saying everything we have and believe is crap. Far from it. Even though I have made a big deal of, say, Germany's recent election, to me this is just an example of a much larger issue. Even though Germany has a pluralistic democracy, what comes out in the end, is really not as pluralistic as it first appears. Just like the Americans, for example, who decided (in true Enlightenment fashion) for a first-past-the-post democratic republic which encourages ignoring the others, in most pluralistic democratic republics, the tendency has been to simply ignore the rest anyway by just looking at what is, never even thinking about what-is-not.

But, it's not that easy anymore. The what-is-not has means at its disposal to remind everyone that there are other ways of looking at things. This was, and remains, the most noticeable (and admirable) aspect of the Occupy movement. They may not be an organized political force, we may not hear a lot from them these days, but they are still in our minds and we still know that they are around. Groups, movements, and the like that can make themselves known are much harder to ignore. And that's what has changed. In those days when news traveled slowly, it was perfectly acceptable to act upon the knowledge one had because it was easy enough to convince others that there was nothing else to be known. By the time the other views reached the center (or capital), it was often simply too late. Things aren't like that anymore. We have instantaneous communication, ever more people are coming online (either through computers or cellphones), and those who are in power at any given time have to deal with the fact that just about anything they do is subject to scrutiny. Simple or contrived majorities or landslide victories are soon revealed for what they are: fictions. You can say you represent the will of the people, but it is getting more and more difficult to ignore the people. The powers-that-be (TPTB) still try, but it is getting harder.

Whenever TPTB are challenged, the reactions are harsh. The more they are challenged, the harsher the reactions. It's not right, grant you, but I do understand the psychology and logic involved. They are in the spotlight, they have to change, and they don't know how. They've become, in essence, economic and political "flat-earthers". For those of them that can read and for those of them who have been willing to read a little history know that their days are numbered and they are going to go the way of the dinosaurs and dodos, which is what they, in the end, actually are.

Fortunately, there are a lot of folks who have washed their hands of the "way things are" and just do them differently. This is where employee-owned businesses, cooperatives, regional currencies, local environmental activists, and more come in. They are not playing the old game, they are redefining how the game is played. They realize that there are lots of ways around the system ... at least those parts of it that just don't work anymore. Anyone who is concerned about their future, or the future of their children or grandchildren, need to start taking these alternatives seriously.

What these alternatives demonstrate, on a daily basis, is that many of our perceptions are simply wrong. There doesn't have to be one strong leader or nothing works. There doesn't have to be particularized vested interests to make things happen. There is no reason why money should be the domain of just a few or why it should play such a dominant role in our lives. In simplest terms, they are showing that there simply are viable, workable, and adaptable alternatives. They haven't reached a tipping point yet, but they will sooner or later. We'll all be much better off if we take the time to reflect on our own perceptions and consider what the alternatives have to offer.

Unrigging the game

The only reason I say the game is rigged is that only a few even get to play. We're made to believe that we can play, but in reality, we -- the rest of us, the bulk of us -- were benched long ago. I suppose there was a time when the economic and political systems that we have today had their value and their place, but whether we like it or not, things have changed, yet too many of our perceptions have not.

I can't say it enough: perceptions are powerful things, and most of us don't realize just how powerful they are. They cause us to do things, at times, that may not be what we should be doing. For those who might have trouble following this, let me explain what I mean in an analogy.

You get up at sunrise one morning and see the sun just above the horizon in the East. It is a beautiful and inspiring sight, to be sure, and you feel exhilarated and inspired to make this a good day. That evening, at twilight, you go out again, and see the sun just over the horizon in the West. It is a beautiful and inspiring sight, to be sure, and you feel exhilarated and inspired because today was simply a good day. Our experience; that is, that which we saw by going outside, "tells" us that the sun rose in the East and set in the West (and that's how we even describe it in English). We know, however, that the sun really didn't do anything, rather the earth turned and made it look like the sun rose and set. Except for a number of flat-earthers still running around, we know that reality is different from our experience, but the feelings associated with the event remain, and the real knowledge of what is at work is simply pushed into the background. What is more, even though we were inspired by (or at) these events, we also know -- somewhere in the back of our minds that there are others who saw the same sunrise and sunset but whose days were anything but inspiring or uplifting, they were full of pain, misery and maybe even death. Yes, we "know" this, but we keep it out of our awareness as much as possible.

It's really no different in other areas of life, like economics or politics. Our experience tells us one thing, but we know deep down that many other people's experiences are not as positive as our own. We may have got a new and better job, but how many others had the misfortune to lose theirs, maybe forever. Our party may have got elected to government, but we just assume the other folks will we see the wisdom in this and "get on board", though we know, deep down, that they may be made continually unhappy by the policies being made. In both of these cases, we tend to think that that's just the way things are, that there are immutable (not hidden, but most often not-thought-about) laws at work that makes things the way they are. In other words, our perceptions are one things, but we "know" that the reality of it all may be something very, very different.

You might say that things have always been this way so what are you going to do about it, but if you take a serious look at the unfoldment of the presence of humans on this planet, you can't help but notice that there was a time when the perceptions we had couldn't even be challenged. Ask Galileo or Copernicus. Today, however, things are different. We know they are different, we can relatively safely challenge others' perceptions, but we too often still act as if we lived in the Middle Ages or even earlier. Much of what we "believe to be so" today is, of course, a product of the Enlightenment (certainly our political and economic systems), but we've moved on. It's time we owned up to this fact and simply acknowledge that perhaps not everything we think, that our perceptions, may not be best suited for our own times.

Who likes playing rigged games?

Last time I advanced the thesis that less is more, especially in politics, primarily because the more is more or less ignored. Before I get to those who are completely ignored and then, as promised, back to the mistaken crowd that thinks that not voting is automatic exclusion from the discussion, let's take a look at those who did play the game but lost anyhow.

Just considering the people who voted for the moment, we should recall that almost 60% did not vote for the most likely future government's leaders. Even in the best case that the CDU and SPD get into a coalition, we will now have a situation that nobody voted for, namely, some sort of compromise on positions from the parties represented. Still, just over 30% of the voters didn't want any of what is being proposed even in compromise form. (Remember, folks, a stockholder with 20% of the shares of a company is considered to have a controlling interest; for example, the State of Lower Saxony owns 20% of VW and nothing happens to VW without Lower Saxony's OK.) Those considered so far, of course, are the ones who at least offered alternatives to what the "ruling" parties are going to offer. When we add in the rest of the folks, those who didn't vote at all, we have, as I noted last time, over 50% of the population who are not be represented.

It is foolish to think that people who have put their heart, soul, time, and money into proposing a political platform will just throw it overboard just because the majority or the plurality of voters didn't choose them. What is more, an additional 28% of the voting populace took a look at all 10 or 12 party offers and said, in effect, there's nothing there that speaks to me. Granted, there may be some people who don't care, but you can't assume it's all of them. If you don't know, you have to actually assume it's none of them. Now, my question for the purists is, why does not voting not count? Maybe there is simply nothing worth voting for.

We all know, of course, that these 28% will simply get ignored. No one is going to ask why their own message didn't get across, and they are not going to ask why 70% or 80% or more of the voting populace didn't vote for them. No, whoever thinks they have the most say is going to do whatever they want to do as far as they can and everyone else is just going to be ignored. In other words, you can look at the parties that make suggestions and recognize that if they don't "win", they're ignored, so it is even easier to ignore the ones who made no suggestion at all.

This is, in effect, the way things work, but it's a rigged game. If you get some say you claim that's what everyone wanted, knowing full well most did not want that. If you have no say, you're treated as if you have no say and are supposed to rally round the flag for the ones who are now speaking for you. And then they wonder why there is discord in the country.

It's all very simple, really. If you can get hold of power, you can do pretty much what you want, but nothing too extreme (generally, though there are historical exceptions to this), but you can act as if the vast majority simply doesn't exist. I, for one, however, am not convinced this is the best way forward.

Sometimes what isn't is more than what is

There is no question that we have some trouble dealing with diversity. Well, I know quite a few folks who do. When we hear the word, we generally think first off of different cultures and heritages, but that's just ethnic diversity. There are other differences between groups that may be more significant. We live in a pluralist society, whether we like it or not, and while we know we can't please all of the people all of the time, shouldn't we be trying at least to at least acknowledge most of the people, most of the time?

I just finished a book on quantum mechanics and consciousness in which the role of perception, naturally, played a very important role. Perception is that "simple" process by which we "see" (or experience, or recognize) things. But, as any optical illusion brings home very quickly, what we "see" is not always what is. For example, it appears that railroad tracks meet in the distance, but we know they are parallel and can't. But it looks like they do. This is a necessary illusion for it helps us orient ourselves in three-dimensional space. There are other illusions that are more subtle. Take the recent German election.

Merkel and the CDU didn't win a majority and they are now in search of a coalition partner. She, as head of the party with the strongest showing, is charged with trying to form a government. Any choice she makes will involve compromises of her own party's positions, so there will be a lot of discussion, internally, about what they are willing to give up in order to get things going. But, my question is, just what kind of a majority does she really have? In reality, none at all.

Take a step back from it all and think about it for a moment: Her party got just over 40% of the vote and the next biggest grouping is the SPD with just over 25%. Together that would constitute 65% majority in the Bundestag. Seems like a pretty strong showing, doesn't it? But, in reality, it's rather deceiving. Even in this constellation, the government would only sort of represent the 48% of the voting populace. That is, even best case, the true majority of Germans are not being represented at all, and in true modern political fashion will be ignored. When the government starts talking about what the people wants, or even what the voters want, then we need to keep this little fact in mind: whatever it is that Ms. Merkel and her cobbled-together motley crew represent is in no way reflective of the majority opinion.

Now, I know there any number of you true-blue democrats out there who will immediately claim that if you don't vote, you have no right to complain, but as we'll see next time, that's a non-argument; it's a politician's argument; that is, it simply refuses to bring one's perception into line with reality. It's sort of like believing the railroad tracks actually meet.