C-213. “We, the people”
In aggregate, individuals are only “us.” “We, the people” is about collective behavior, as in the most productive sense of “community.” We need to be concerned about the “us/We” ratio. It looks to be at least >1++. In this it refracts the economy/polity ratio: seriously imbalanced and growing more so.* To correct this imbalance, “We, the people” needs more emphasis. And more strength.
Can we make democracy work? Yes. If we can make “We, the people” work. But there was and still is work to be done. As stated up front in the U.S. Preamble to the Constitution: “… toward a more perfect Union…” We are not there yet. And not paying enough attention to the problem. “Save the Union!” Of course. What there is of it. But Solve the Union problem? For that, consider looking at “We” and “We, the people” in R-spacetime, with R-sense and R-technology.
Let’s finish the American Revolution! We made it to freedom FROM, to freedom OF and to some if not all of freedom FOR. But we have fallen short of freedom TO. For what is freedom without requisite functionality? We have a Constitution and amendments that set out a control system, but a Preamble unRealized as an operating system. We are beset with politics to the detriment of polity.
“We, the people” points to needed functionality. There is more to “We” than the subject of a B-speak sentence. “We” should be an R-word, as much (Forward!) verb as noun. And as noun, as much need as product. Like “Union,” as an R-word, whose CEM role** we have seen to be needed to bring about and maintain a balanced relationship between individual and community (App. XXII). A balance seen to be clearly missing in the consumer/citizen >1++ ratio. A balance disturbed by every decision (e.g., election).*** A disturbance we can expect more and more frequently in our present climate of D.M./P=>S >1++.
Here in the U.S., Union is a three-fold problem. We, such as we are, comprise three individual x community relationships: Citizen and State; Citizen and Nation; State and Nation. These in need of CEM development among them. And further complicated because each relationship presents an “us/We” >1++ ratio within it to contend with.
As the Vermont farmer said, “I wouldn’t start from here.” Not in B-spacetime with B-speak the only language technology in hand. But we needn’t. Consider, for example, using R-sense and R-technology to initiate a new major in engineering: civic engineering. We -- and “toward a more perfect Union” -- need it. Peace needs it. Many of our institutions need it. Collective behavior (see O:P) needs it.
Lest it seem an invitation for eugenics to return, there are countless distribution and readiness needs for We to entertain … and those in addition to our physical climate problems -- especially the neglected D.M./P=>S >1++ ratio (a D.M. that tolerates a degree of lying that P=>S would soon embarrass).
***
“We” introduces to words’ work (i.e., WISA) an “ambiguity of the plural.” “We” in common (B-speak) language is the syntactic subject. “We” in R-sense (Message theory) is an R-word, pertaining to all four phases of needed functionality.# The last phase, the achieved We, is not – has not been – easily achieved.
As Lincoln knew so well. Were one permitted a footnote to his Gettysburg Address, it would be to the “us” in, “It is for us the living…”, to interpose after “us” the words, “not yet the We that we need to be” … to do the “unfinished work.”
The “unfinished work”: Unfinished words’ work that WISA technology must heed and respond to## the WICF and WTITBTA materiality that languishes in part for lack of leverage Forward from WISA’s after-the-fact concern with WITA.
“Public,” “public opinion,” “democracy,” “community” … these and many other concepts are unfulfilled promises until We, as R-word, ca be realized as a theoretical construct. And realized technologically, via procedural technology.
“We” is precisely the other ”Tragedy of the Commons.” Not this or that physical resource that is – or should be – held in common. Rather and more than those commons is the unachieved capability to take Forward steps together. Any such collective capability is no gift of capacity to a corporate body. We is not a body. It must be a procedural technology. And up to We to bring about. Once Grasped as a procedural tech challenge, then We can proceed to provide ourselves with a conscience (a new public opinion) and a consciousness (a new journalist). R-sense says there is a technical solution here.###
***
* See the Citizens United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.
** The CEM role in what is called for (WICF), in light of the Nature of Things (History’s body CEM step) and its general persisting conditions (partial order, consequentiality and [body] discontinuity) which dictate development.
*** Imbalances that add up. Not to be dismissed as cognitive dissonance. But seen rather as the source of a growing demand for power to win elections at the expense of solving the problem of We via step strengthening.
# “us” is similarly afflicted. J. Kelley’s (Pogo) observation is doubly to the point: “us” really is two problems.
## See J. Boggs’ (EffectiveArts.com) work with “Attend To’s” (Heed) and “Tries” (Respond). Technical Help re WICF, that is.
### AI (esp. IA) technicians take note. (See C-226.)
In light of the very useful Search feature now available in the home page, parenthetical back references are suspended for Comments as of C-184.
(c) 2020 R. F. Carter
Can we make democracy work? Yes. If we can make “We, the people” work. But there was and still is work to be done. As stated up front in the U.S. Preamble to the Constitution: “… toward a more perfect Union…” We are not there yet. And not paying enough attention to the problem. “Save the Union!” Of course. What there is of it. But Solve the Union problem? For that, consider looking at “We” and “We, the people” in R-spacetime, with R-sense and R-technology.
Let’s finish the American Revolution! We made it to freedom FROM, to freedom OF and to some if not all of freedom FOR. But we have fallen short of freedom TO. For what is freedom without requisite functionality? We have a Constitution and amendments that set out a control system, but a Preamble unRealized as an operating system. We are beset with politics to the detriment of polity.
“We, the people” points to needed functionality. There is more to “We” than the subject of a B-speak sentence. “We” should be an R-word, as much (Forward!) verb as noun. And as noun, as much need as product. Like “Union,” as an R-word, whose CEM role** we have seen to be needed to bring about and maintain a balanced relationship between individual and community (App. XXII). A balance seen to be clearly missing in the consumer/citizen >1++ ratio. A balance disturbed by every decision (e.g., election).*** A disturbance we can expect more and more frequently in our present climate of D.M./P=>S >1++.
Here in the U.S., Union is a three-fold problem. We, such as we are, comprise three individual x community relationships: Citizen and State; Citizen and Nation; State and Nation. These in need of CEM development among them. And further complicated because each relationship presents an “us/We” >1++ ratio within it to contend with.
As the Vermont farmer said, “I wouldn’t start from here.” Not in B-spacetime with B-speak the only language technology in hand. But we needn’t. Consider, for example, using R-sense and R-technology to initiate a new major in engineering: civic engineering. We -- and “toward a more perfect Union” -- need it. Peace needs it. Many of our institutions need it. Collective behavior (see O:P) needs it.
Lest it seem an invitation for eugenics to return, there are countless distribution and readiness needs for We to entertain … and those in addition to our physical climate problems -- especially the neglected D.M./P=>S >1++ ratio (a D.M. that tolerates a degree of lying that P=>S would soon embarrass).
“We” introduces to words’ work (i.e., WISA) an “ambiguity of the plural.” “We” in common (B-speak) language is the syntactic subject. “We” in R-sense (Message theory) is an R-word, pertaining to all four phases of needed functionality.# The last phase, the achieved We, is not – has not been – easily achieved.
As Lincoln knew so well. Were one permitted a footnote to his Gettysburg Address, it would be to the “us” in, “It is for us the living…”, to interpose after “us” the words, “not yet the We that we need to be” … to do the “unfinished work.”
The “unfinished work”: Unfinished words’ work that WISA technology must heed and respond to## the WICF and WTITBTA materiality that languishes in part for lack of leverage Forward from WISA’s after-the-fact concern with WITA.
“Public,” “public opinion,” “democracy,” “community” … these and many other concepts are unfulfilled promises until We, as R-word, ca be realized as a theoretical construct. And realized technologically, via procedural technology.
“We” is precisely the other ”Tragedy of the Commons.” Not this or that physical resource that is – or should be – held in common. Rather and more than those commons is the unachieved capability to take Forward steps together. Any such collective capability is no gift of capacity to a corporate body. We is not a body. It must be a procedural technology. And up to We to bring about. Once Grasped as a procedural tech challenge, then We can proceed to provide ourselves with a conscience (a new public opinion) and a consciousness (a new journalist). R-sense says there is a technical solution here.###
* See the Citizens United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.
** The CEM role in what is called for (WICF), in light of the Nature of Things (History’s body CEM step) and its general persisting conditions (partial order, consequentiality and [body] discontinuity) which dictate development.
*** Imbalances that add up. Not to be dismissed as cognitive dissonance. But seen rather as the source of a growing demand for power to win elections at the expense of solving the problem of We via step strengthening.
# “us” is similarly afflicted. J. Kelley’s (Pogo) observation is doubly to the point: “us” really is two problems.
## See J. Boggs’ (EffectiveArts.com) work with “Attend To’s” (Heed) and “Tries” (Respond). Technical Help re WICF, that is.
### AI (esp. IA) technicians take note. (See C-226.)
In light of the very useful Search feature now available in the home page, parenthetical back references are suspended for Comments as of C-184.
(c) 2020 R. F. Carter
S