Governance by opinion? Or evidence?

Governance is the administration of a community's shared resource..... and that has certain implications, in terms of duty of care and health and safety of the community, the entire community.

Governance by opinion?

Who would vote on that basis, and why?

A VERY important question, one that demands evidence for an accurate answer.

The Brexit campaign was an example of opinion over evidence, as was the invasion of Iraq, the bombing of Libya, the support of violent militia in Syria, and not least, the policies pertaining to how our State assists and help the most vulnerable in our Society.

I find it utterly appalling that political decision making, policy is based on opinion (ideology, etc) rather than a full appraisal of all the available evidence.

The media provide opinion and present it as fact. The Politicians react to the media and discuss opinion, rather than the evidence. I see this as a matter of health and safety.

So as to why the Election, now?

Europe will not negotiate on the basis of opinion, and an opinionated Government will find it difficult to engage in an honest negotiation, and that will be come apparent to one and all, and their grip on power will be severely diminished for some time.

So they want out...... before it all goes badly.

They know a Corbyn led Government or progressive alliance Government will be evidence based, and they will attempt to disrupt, derail that Government (from within and without) rather than be mature enough to negotiate in good faith, for all of us.

So they are handing the chalice over, and it remains to be seen what they will do after that - I think they will be disruptive.

Please bear in mind that this is really just an opinion - about the motives behind the snap election, and that I need evidence to support this conclusion and to determine the appropriate response.

My most urgent concern is the primacy of opinion in the electorate, dominated by media output, (and to a degree the way the State curriculum in history disables evidence led analysis) which enables any Government to get support for policies by touting/triggering opinion.In a similar vein, I detest the word 'benefits' when applied to Social Care.

It really ought to be called 'assistance' or 'help' so that when people who do not look at all the evidence suggest that we should not help or assist those who need it, it becomes very clear what the issue is.

Kindest regards

Corneilius

"Do what you love, it's Your Gift to Universe"

*If you like this post, if you found the themes resonant, if you agree in part, would you be kind enough to let others know about it? I would really appreciate that. You could drop a comment too, if you felt the urge. Or not. I will moderate contributions, and block any that are abusive. For obvious reasons. Thank you for reading.

Evidence, David Smail and the facts before us.

I have just completed my first reading of 'The Origins of Unhappiness : A New Understanding of Personal Unhappiness' written by David Smail.  It is an astounding work, and I must say, I now believe that it is essential reading for anyone interested in psychological distress, justice and economic equity.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27133657-the-origins-of-unhappiness

"It is the main argument of this book that emotional and psychological distress is often brought about through the operation of social-environmental powers which have their origin at a considerable distance from those ultimately subjected to them. 

On the whole, psychology has concerned itself very little with the field of power which stretches beyond our immediate relations with each other, and this has led to serious limitations on the explanatory power of the theories it has produced. 

To illustrate this, typical cases of patient distress in the 1980s are examined. The decade when the right-wing of politics proclaimed there was no such thing as society gave rise to psychological distress across social classes, as long-standing societal institutions were dismantled. 

This is as much a work of sociology, politics, and philosophy, as it is of psychology. Fundamentals of an environmental understanding of distress are outlined. A person is the interaction of a body with the environment."

What I got from this book : realism and honesty.

I live in England where poverty is deliberately maintained and the poor are dehumanised in media representations, where the symptoms of that distress are used as signs of a flawed nature in order to blame the impoverished for their impoverished state, which protects the Wealth Extraction systems, externalising the cost of low wages and inadequate social care provision. 

"We need to realise that, rather than the patient being a problem for the world, the world is a problem for the patient. We are embodied products of environment space-time. To make a difference in our lives we need to be able to exert what little influence we have on the environment, to make it, from our perspective, a little more benign. It is not we who need to change, but the world around us.Or, to put it another way, the extent to which we are able to change will always depend upon some material change in the environmental structures of power which envelope us (and insofar as these cannot be changed, for example because they are in the past, neither can we be wiped clean of their effects).

The difficulty with this is immediately apparent: how do we, relatively powerless creatures, bring effective influence to bear on the environment?"

David Smail (goes to wiki page on David Smail) wrote this :

"Hardly any of the 'symptoms' of psychological distress may correctly be seen as medical matters. The so-called psychiatric 'disorders' are nothing to do with faulty biology, nor indeed are they the outcome of individual moral weakness or other personal failing. They are the creation of the social world in which we live, and that world is structured by power.
    
Social power may be defined as the means of obtaining security or advantage, and it will be exercised within any given society in a variety of forms: coercive (force), economic (money power) and ideological (the control of meaning). Power is the dynamic which keeps the social world in motion. It may be used for good or for ill.
    
One cannot hope to understand the phenomena of psychological distress, nor begin to think what can be done about them, without an analysis of how power is distributed and exercised within society.

Such an understanding is the focus of this web-site. "


You can go to David Smail's Website here via wayback web archive.

I respectfully suggest this as a genuinely useful resource base, to find tools and insights that relate to how power operates and behaves in this culture.

The psychology of power hierarchies. The psychology of people adjusting to this unhealthy social institutional structure and culture. Some home truths. Radicalisation. Grooming. Social meaning. Our lives in all of this.

Evidence based.





Kindest regards

Corneilius

"Do what you love, it's Your Gift to Universe"

*If you like this post, if you found the themes resonant, if you agree in part, would you be kind enough to let others know about it? I would really appreciate that. You could drop a comment too, if you felt the urge. Or not. I will moderate contributions, and block any that are abusive. For obvious reasons. Thank you for reading.

Who to Vote for in a Warring State?

"The fact is that we (the adult world) do not feel an obligation to be truthful to children. We are like managers and manipulators of news in Washington, Moscow, London, Peking and Paris and all the other capitals of the world". ~ John Holt

Peace is more than the absence of War

Who to vote for?

John Holt, a world renowned educator and author, makes a pertinent observation of the power dynamic of Schools in the 1950s, 60s and 70s.

“School tends to be a dishonest as well as a nervous place. We adults are not often honest with children, least of all in school. We tell them, not what we think, but what we feel they ought to think; or what other people feel or tell us they ought to think.

The fact is that we (the adult world) do not feel an obligation to be truthful to children. We are like managers and manipulators of news in Washington, Moscow, London, Peking and Paris and all the other capitals of the world.

We think it is our right and our duty, not to tell the truth but to say whatever will best serve our cause – in this case, the cause of making children grow up into the kind of people we want them to be, thinking whatever we want them to think.

We have only to convince ourselves (and we are very easily convinced) that a lie will be ‘better’ for the children than the truth, and we will lie. We don’t always need even that excuse; we often lie only for our own convenience.”

-  1964, from a talk by John Holt who carried out thousands of hours of acute observation of children in schools across America.

How much does this still resonate, in 2017, in the UK?

I think the public and official discourse around War (and much else besides) as it exists in the UK 2017  General Election - or any national election, and even each bye-elections - for Parliament reminds me somewhat of this “dishonest and nervous place.” 

Who to vote for in a warring State?

One way of placing the election in context, I would suggest. For any democratic election, any time, anywhere when States wage war as a 'last resort'  tool of 'foreign policy'.

Rather focus’s the mind, don’t you think?

The fact that this is not a central question in this General Election, given that the powers of ‘defence/offence’ and ‘foreign policy' (keep the diamond mines British!) are being handed over to an elected person in this Election is troubling. It’s irrational, though those who would, for whatever reason, wish to avoid the issue, it might appear a rational avoidance.

How can you vote for that?

Indoctrination is the very dark 'art' of convincing someone that the external value presented is intrinsic, internal, part of the person.

It requires that the target loses touch with what ought to be emergent, the natural sense of self, and replaces that with an externally driven identity through which loyalty and submission to the indoctrinating system, are assured.

It's rude, and it is also a toxic mime of 'Education'.

In a healthy Society such abuse would be impossible, unthinkable.

 Warring States.  The unthinkable, the intolerable, the unacceptable.

The USA, UK, France, Russia and their allies The Saudi’s, the Qatari’s and the Israeli’s.

2017.  The UK General Election.

War Policies?

What are the war policies of the active candidates?

More importantly, what are your (my readers) War Policies, and will anyone support those?

This democracy is a veil.

It looks good, and yet the wind of honesty passes right through it, does not fill it's sails, and the fantasy ship is but a barge of mechanised death, decorated like a General’s breast pocket with gaudy baubles and pomp, going nowhere, because it is aground.

The mist is strong, and the tide is out. And its return is inevitable.

The tide will come back in.

Nature cannot be dominated indefinitely by anything that emerges out of it’s mystery of Life.

Healthy Internalisation?

I think that the natural healthy version of internalisation is honesty and living practice, experience and learning gained by observing healthy adults and being respected and treated humanely at all times..

I feel that it is innate, that it is a default setting of the natural child. It is a sensitivity to be able to learn, and it is also a vulnerability.

The art of learning through time and experience, sense and environment... the natural child who is secure will recognise aspects of self in all areas of life and living things, which can then meet the externals, the content of the child’s habitat and make sense of them, and then model them and internalise them so they are in RAM mode available, so to speak.... once internalised they do not have to think using the intellect to grasp the meaning of what is being observed or interacted with in their world.

This is also useful for anyone living closely with plants and animals, in a dynamic environment, as part of a co-operative collective.

It is a evolved mode of information gathering, data acquisition and storage as part of optimal human biological health.

Mirror Neurons existence and operation supports this view: what we see we can also sense, we can imagine within our minds, we can learn from the actions of others, we can practice in our minds.

We feel into the world, we model it and we move it within ourselves.

This is learning.... responding to what is changing, availing of new information to meet those dynamics and remain sustainable, nurturant.

Healthy Governance - An Alternative Metric

I think of Healthy Governance as being the practical realities of administering a communities shared resources for the equal benefit of all members of that community and the habitat within which or from which that community emerges.

In the case of developed States, and Governance this relates to taxation, which is collected from all, in one way or another, and is the community shared resource – it does not BELONG to the Government, they hold it in trust.

Apply that metric to policy.

What are the implications of administering a community shared resource?

- it must be evidence based, as a duty of care

- adverse outcomes must be avoided, and where they occur, by accident or lack of foresight, or due to changes beyond human agency, they must be remedied immediately.

- long term health and safety is as much a priority as short term health and safety

- The policies must be proven to nurture the whole community, in a balanced and healthy manner.

This metric applies also to the seas, waterways, lands we inhabit. These too are shared community resources, and not just for us humans of developed societies.

We share this Earth. Fact.

Healthy Governance.

For me, this old politic of competing powers is immature, it is a diseased way of conducting matters, and utterly toxic.

I cannot participate in current political discourse because this fundamental truth is being ignored, denied, avoided across all mainstreams, and beyond.

The system is bullying that has become institutionalised, and I cannot vote for it to continue.

Who to vote for in a Warring State?

Interview with Inger Skjelsbæk who works with PRIO. The Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) conducts research on the conditions for peaceful relations between states, groups and people.

Researchers at PRIO seek to understand the processes that bring societies together or split them apart. We explore how conflicts erupt and how they can be resolved; we investigate how different kinds of violence affect people; and we examine how societies tackle crises – and the threat of crisis. We document general trends, seek to understand processes, and inform concrete responses.

"We focus a lot more on conflict than we do on what peace actually is. What is it that creates well-being? What is it that makes you feel at ease in your own skin, in your own life, in your own sociopolitical context? What does it take? All narratives about who you are and what your prospects are, and how that impacts your well-being, depend on how these stories are reinforced or challenged by the communities you live in. If peace is just the absence of war, then you have peace lots of places. But if peace is also well-being and resilience to conflicts, then it is more challenging."

Healthy Governance is an immense challenge facing us, and we had best do what we can to ensure our children's children do not have to do what we did not do, when we could have. 

Who to vote for in a warring State?

Kindest regards

Corneilius

"Do what you love, it's Your Gift to Universe"

*If you like this post, if you found the themes resonant, if you agree in part, would you be kind enough to let others know about it? I would really appreciate that. You could drop a comment too, if you felt the urge. Or not. I will moderate contributions, and block any that are abusive. For obvious reasons. Thank you for reading.