Friends are Electric

I failed the challenge, reaching only 20000 words by the end of November.  As I edit and make the material readable it will be posted.

We hear a lot of talk about referendums these days, especially about how they are the most pure form of democracy which a society can have.  Direct democracy, it is argued, represents the true will of the people in creating consensus about how a society should move forward.

Now, anyone reading this after having read other posts I have written, will know that I am going to speak against direct democracy.  And naturally, one must question my stability upon attacking such a target.  Surely, everyone having an equal say in deciding the outcome of an important (or unimportant) question is the definition of a good democracy.  And obviously I am going to disagree, and hopefully, in the process of explaining why, bring you onto my side concerning this topic.

So let me begin.

The first reason why I disagree with the use of direct deomcracy is that it reduces political discourse to marketing.  And by this I mean the question posed to the public.  How do you pose the question? Which shall be the `yea’  side and which the `nay’.  This is an important consideration, as one has an obvious negative connotation.  Certianly, most people would not be affected by such a simple matter, but one cannot deny the complexity of the decision making process, perhaps such considerations should not be ignored.

Beyond which side shall be yes and which shall be no, the exact wording of the question becomes incredibly important.  If you can word the question correct you might be able to win people to your side.  Or just keep them from the opponents side.  If the question makes it sound treasonous to disagree, some might abstain rather than disagreeing.  Likely not many, but some.

All this highlights another important issue: oversimplification.  This works two ways.  First, the phrasing of the question can make  an answer seem obvious of gloss over the nuances of the actual situation.  The other, more dangerous, simplification is in the results.  55% in favour of a proposition is a majority.  The government can then go ahead and implement the proposition and disregard the detractors.  But 45% of people disagreed.  They have been silenced by the majority.  Thus, a false sense of agreement and support is created.

The final issue I shall discus for the time being is the public good.  This is a simple argument: direct democracy encourages selfishness, you are to vote how is best for you.  In a general election, since more than a single proposition is being voted on, you are more likely to vote along what is best for society as a whole.  Selfishness is the enemy of democracy, and referendums breed selfishness.

Those are some reasons why I dislike direct democracy and tremble when people call for greater use of it.  Tomorrow I shall discuss selfishness and its negative effect on democratic society.  Until then, think hard.

We shall have a change over the coming white.  Trust me on this.  Of course, things are always changing and denial of this fact is absurd and foolish.  But I digress.

The point is that things change.  And to stay current we must change as well.  Which is the most important aspect of living in a democracy.

To clarify, if you find yourself disagreeing with something said, it does neither you nor the person advancing the opinion any good to just react.  Instead, you should reflect on the statement, determine what exactly you disagree with.  And then, most importantly, tell yourself why you disagree.  This means that you will be able to defend your position if you ever have need to do so, which is important to the functioning of Canadian democracy, and democracy everywhere.

This, of course, is a risky proposition.  What if you find that you have no reason why you disagree with a position? I would argue that you then owe it to yourself and the author to either discover a real why to your rejection.  Or, much more importantly, accept the argument into your grand narrative.  This later case is what you owe yourself if you find that you actually agree with the position, even if you initially thought otherwise.

We can all go through life rejecting and accepting things based solely on the source or the impression, but as citizens of a democratic nation we owe it to ourselves, the country, and most importantly the populous of this country, to be thinking beings who truly attempt to understand our wonderfully complex nation to the fullest extent we can.

There is, of course, a complicating factor.  That of theory and dogma.  What I mean by this is that we all have fundamental assumptions which are unquestionable to us.  Examples include thermodynamics to scientists, the divine origins of holy texts to the religious, or other axioms to other theories.  Science has shown that at some level you must take something as a given, and it is best to take the simplest and fewest things as given.  In science, this is not a trivial task but it is at least self regulated.  For our own personal world view, there can be no regulation except for our own world view, which is by definition biased.  For this reason it is highly important to examine your axioms from time to time to see if they are reasonable assumptions to make.

And the final word: what is appropriate today might not fit tomorrow.  As the world changes the organizations and organs of government which best serve the citizens change.  Do not let yourself be trapped in the assumption that what worked yesterday will work today or tomorrow.  If something is working, however, it could continue to work into the future.  Be logical.  Be rational.  Be good citizens.

I can hear a bell toll in the distance, to the south.  I don’t want to walk south, my destination is west.  But it calls.  The bell calls to me.

Each peal wore on my soul, driving me.  Salvation lies to the east, but curiosity drives me south.

What is it ringing for?  Some funeral, perhaps.  A dead man.  Like a dead man could appreciate a sound so pure.

“Let the dead sleep!”

It sounded again.

It seems to me that each repetition was louder, that each sound echoed around my head until the next came.  The buildup was intolerable.

Silence.  Finally the dead may sleep.  I hold my breath, allowing myself to hope just for a moment.

It sounds again, even louder still.  I can no longer walk.  Before now I had been keeping a slow pace, hoping to escape the sound before it drove me to madness.  But I could see it had other intentions.

“I swear to you, cease! I can take no more and I value my life! Please, for all that is good, stop! Silence!”

I could feel my resolve building.  I was breaking the spell of the sound.

I began walking, the peal rang across the land. It no longer mattered to me.  I was free of its spell for the time.

I saw dark clouds to the south and crows in the sky, knowing I had to get home soon.  Perhaps some day I will follow the sound, satisfying my curiosity.  Perhaps it is not so fearsome as I have come to imagine.  Perhaps, but I fear otherwise.  Maybe if the moon returns I can trust my ears as I can my eyes, but until that time I will fight as best I can.

Since I have such inability to write anything of length with any frequency, and as of yet, at all, and since I often write incomplete ideas down, and since both Nietzsche’s Zarathustra and Comte de Lautréamont’s Les Chantes de Maldoror (both interesting works) use a short format, often a few paragraphs to pages, I have decided I shall do the same.  Not that I am pretending to belong to this tradition at all, but if they can do it, why can I not try?

Within the next few weeks a lot should be happening in Canadian politics.  Analysis will follow where required.  Obama is up to become president quite soon, no analysis required.  There is war in the middle east, not entirely unique on its own but fascinating none the less.

Closer to home, writers block beaten.  Over the break I commenced writing my own pen and paper role playing game, using the  Prose Descriptive Quality system by Atomic Sock Monkey.  It is based on the world of William Hope Hodgeson’s The Night Land, which is one of my favourite works of fiction.  When that is completed, it shall be shared.  The full text of the story is available from Project Gutenberg.

That is really all for now.  More to follow as it comes up.

Westernism, for the sake of this discussion, is thinking like a Westerner.  This may include a belief in spreading civilisation, ethnic superiority, looking down on those who are not western in lifestyle or thinking, the pursuit of the `American Dream,’ strong belief in democracy and liberalism, personal certainty of the necessity of capitalism, love of globalisation, consumerism and, most importantly, belief that we in the West have the most ideal lifestyle imaginable.

The important question I wish to address is the source of Westernism, more specifically: is Westernism something you are born with, or is it something you learn.  Thus, can someone not born in the west truly become western, and can someone born in the west ever really escape it.

This stems from a discussion I had with a friend who’s family are not from the western world.  My parents, and their parents, and some of their parents, etc., were born in Canada.  Clearly, if Westernism is to any extent inherited then I am fully in line with this ideology.  And clearly my friend is entirely separate from this way of thinking.  Both of which are entirely false.

To hold with Westernism is a stereotype of what a person from the West might be like.  True, there are those who follow all of the stereotypes to perfection, and there are those who do not.  For instance,  I know a great many people who believe in democracy and liberalism but who reject many aspects of capitalism in its pure from: these people are generally called social democrats.  Are social democrats therefore not western?  I also know people who would consider social democrats to be antiwestern or antiAmerican.

I also know environmentalists who hold with few of the traits I described as being part of Westernism.  To them, Westernism is a tool of those who push for globalisation and further pure capitalism.  Some even go so far as to reject governments, although this is a very small minority.  Are these people Western?  Not by the above imperfect definition.  Could this ideology exist outside the west?  No.  Then they are Western and my definition is imperfect.  Let us craft a new one.

Westernism: any thought of belief that can only come into being in the west.  That is, conditions only exist for the development of this ideology in the land area we consider to be `The West.’

Included in this new definition are still all of the original definition, but it now includes any other ideology unique to the west.  Environmentalism, general equality, human rights.  Not that these are currently unique to the west, but that they were developed through the liberalism which defined the west.

Now all the example people I have talked about are thoroughly western.  My friend is as well, since they wish to use the capitalist system and Westerners’ love of luxury to her advantage.  By their own definition, they were not of the west.  But they are now, by the very structure of the argument they used to prove the converse.

Now, can someone born in the west ever become something else.  Well, I know that we can reject many aspects of Westernism, as I personally have done.  For example, consumerism and the `American Dream’ are not desirable for me, neither is capitalism to a large degree owing to my Social Democratic roots.  But can I reject liberalism, democracy and all other aspects of Westernism?  No.  If all Westernism is defined by the controversial, Globalisation, Environmentalism, cultural imperialism, etc., then yes.  We can reject Westernism.  However, westernism is much more defined by several core beliefs, mainly democracy, liberalism and capitalism.  Can anyone in the west truly reject all of these beliefs?  Not if they wish to live here.

The rejection of any of these aspects of our life would change the West in tremendous ways.  But change is not always good.  Removing any of these aspects to our lives would ruin life in the west, even capitalism, an ideology which I have never been comfortable with.

Here is the crime of westernism, then.  It is like a virus.  Yes, Westernism is imperialistic and relentless in its goals.  Its goals are to make everyone else like us.  Not in every way, of course.  We, however, are so sure of liberal democracy that we demand others use it, regardless of cultural tradition.  I am as guilty as anyone of this.  But I know that I am guilty of it, and I do not feel in the least bit mournful of this knowledge.

Then perhaps the most important aspect of Westernism is not  liberal democracy, but instead that we have the best systems and that failure to adopt these systems might mean forced adoption against your will, since it is for your own benefit.  I can think no of no other alternative ideologies which do not share this fundamental belief, even if they will not admit it to themselves.  We are all convinced of our moral superiority.

The sad fact is that by this final, and perhaps most accurate description of the motivations of Westernism, we are all westerners.  Even those who do not hold with the central tenants of Westernism.  Therefore, westernism, a more pleasant way of saying moral superiority, is something we are born with.  And the liberal democracy we are born within demands being spread everywhere, except where it is we who have the power.  And therefore it is inescapable for those who are born with it, and since I cannot escape from it, I cannot say how those from outside will behave.

Started work on a collaborative screenplay with some friends of mine recently.  Details will be published as they are developed.  Writing for this site has been thoroughly writer’s blocked though.  Hopefully soon, but no promises.

I hope to write all my stories in the same world.  The idea of really developing a world appeals to me greatly.  So, while this might not seem all that innovative, I hope to write about a dystopian city.  Not futuristic in general, but I love science fiction too much to totally ignore it.  I’d also like to explore old style fairy tales and write them in this world.  Not the ones which we were really familiar with as children, but their true versions.  (See: The Bloody Chamber by Angela Carter for a really general idea of what I want to do).

The city in question is The Old City.  The first adaptation I want to attempt is the story of Tamlin.