Original rendering by Aristo T. of an ordinary photo from www.supermodels.nl PAGE 2 -- WELCOME!!! Link to page 3 (in this archive, highest numbered page has newest articles, while page number 1 and 2 are foundational and kept stable, with higher-numbered pages regularly updated as articles find their way into Big Art Booklets or other permanent publications) For copyright conditions of these archived news articles by S Henning W B Reusch, whose artist name is Aristo Tacoma, see the topscript of where they first appeared, namely at the 'comments on general features of breaking news in world economy section' of the worldwide standard search engine Yoga6d.org (and its various entirely identical entry-points, which are named after many of the near-ascii languages it is supporting, -- we use these various entry-points so as to distribute the traffic to this search engine. Cfr www.yoga6d.org/economy.htm. To get into anyone of the search entry points, click at the 'search now' drawing at the front of yoga6d.org, then click on the next image, the one about 'saving humanity', and you can search using ascii ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ (upper as lowercase are the same), optionally with digits inside, for a selection of words found on top at the front of most webpages. As for how to anglify a word written in another language, you have to try out what works -- the rules for translation into the ascii set e.g. from something like the rather different russian language are simplistic and not done according to the context in which the letters appear. Once you learn how to work with this search engine, and learn how to do search-within-a-page when you get many results with the browser 'find-text-in-page' command, you will see that your overall productivity in all areas of life is enhanced, and the freedom from imposed simulations of 'contexts' (such as by boolean 'AND' across a lot of the internet) essentially turns out to be stimulating, because it is predictable, straightforward, and honest in a computer program mechanical way that you can and will learn to harness. But now, for the archive. In the archive, we keep the same type of sequence as in the economy.htm news section -- namely, the newest on top. [[[Spelling variations are part of the soul of writing and convey information on its own, as does variations in lineshift usage.]]] [[[Once in a while we will remove something from this archive section so the overall quantity is at all time quite moderate; for those who wish reprints of earlier works they will then with some level of probability be able to trace them as chapters in published nonfiction books by this author.]]] [[[Note: THE TEXTS TO BE ARCHIVED ARE AS A RULE PUT THERE RATHER AT THE SAME TIME AS THEY APPEAR IN THE MAIN ../economy.htm NEWS SECTION. THESE USUALLY HAVE FEATURES INVOLVING FOUNDATIONAL THOUGHTS ON WHICH MUCH THINKING APART FROM WHAT GOES ON JUST WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN CAN BE FOUNDED. THEY ALSO USUALLY APPEAR AS CHAPTERS IN THE ALWAYS FRESH BOOKS EACH YEAR SIGNED BY ARISTO TACOMA. THESE BOOKS ARE SOLD ALSO AT PHILOSOPHICAL TALKS WITH LIGHT SEMINARS ARRANGED THE SAME DAY AS SPRING/BI PAINTING EXHIBITIONS OPEN, WITH THE CHARACTERISTIC APPROACH OF SPRING/BI WITH A WOODEN BACKGROUND ON WHICH BLACK AND SPRING GREEN ARE APPLIED WITH PLEASANTLY UNRULY LINES, AS BRIEFLY INDICATED AT THE DICTIONARY yoga4d.org/super.]]] THE DEMOCRATIC ASPECT OF HUMAN SOCIETY -- the ideal shape of the democratic part of rulership [As of 2011:2:5 (evening, as for GMT hours)] Author of article can contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org] The word 'ideal', also as used in the word 'idealistic', has a noble meaning. Let us at once be aware that some might invest into the word some kind of whimsical attachment they for no good reason at all has been wrapped into, -- a kind of elevated state of greed, leading to fanatism. Such type of ideals and this type of idealism we are not interested in here. Rather, ideal can -- and indeed this is how we call on this word in this article -- have a meaning along these lines: * A perception of what is right, good and noble, as well as humanly realistically to achieve, in a certain area, not in the sense of absolute achievement but (like peace in a society) something which is relatively achieved by constantly working and/or fighting for it -- and possibly better and better, say, by each century. Connect to this the word 'idealistic', which then means such as activities which are inspired by a righteous passion to live up to some ideals. In this noble and abstract light, let us think of that aspect of human governance which is democratic. Let us first clear away the path for perceiving the ideal democratic approach by indicating some whimsical approaches which turned out not to work at all. In particular, in the 20th century, it became clear that unless rules are thought through, democratic elections degenerate into fluctuations (at best) between dynasties, clans, and cliques or (at worst) keeping one stable corrupt clan in power for decades. The word 'party' stems from roots related to words such as 'part' and 'partial'. Like the word 'team', used in low-brain sports activities, the implication is that of clan, clique, dynasty and such in harsh, ignoble competition against breakdown of itself. One of the least inspiring experiences is not being invited to a gathering for fun in which -- as one then must conclude -- whimsical greed is the principle upon which some are invited. If, however, the gathering comes about by some chance-principles, like that which in the Lisa GJ2 Fic3 programming language is called RFFG or Relatively Free Fluctuation Generator, it ceases to be hurtful to be excluded. A gathering will then not be called 'party' and the invitations will be less exclusive-looking. Another word, associated with such distasteful fun gatherings which do not apply a more generous and empathic principle like RFFG, is that of 'club'. So both types of parties, the political one, and the fun one, are fragmentive, and in the noble and righteous sense of a universal type of democracy as for the human positions of interchangable rulership for areas, the word 'party' mustn't have a role at all. However, it is part of the fun of human society that, just as gathering happens at spaces which can only contain some people, not all, so also is it part of the fact of rulership that governmental positions can only contain some people, not all. In the 20th century, and before, many arrangement along the lines of 'res publica' was sought: that some people are considered to 'represent' other people, and that among these people, again, there is dialogue and voting. However, what with the development of organised clans, cliques, dynasties and even that extremely ugly and despicable thing called by the Italian word "mafia", no "res publica" worked out as "res publica" at all, except in extremely rare cases. In most cases, the republican approach turned out to be a mere vehicle for yet more disgusting party model monopoly approaches. So, meditatively, as a neopopperian enquiry, each must ask: what is the ideal democratic aspect of rulership within a human society? And on repeated enquiries, being realistic about how each human person must be given a possibility to unfold her best, without being given too strong chances to yield to the several serious corrupting temptations that prolonged rulership over some, in some domain, typically easily give rise to, here are the five points which answers this: * A single person can be elected for a governing position, such as prime minister, education minister, but only for a definite period -- X months, let say -- and cannot be working for anything involving anything even remotely near a governing position for twice that period, that is, two times X months, after the completion of one period. There must be a range of rules which allows for automatic removal of a person who in a ruling position does something out of order, to avoid any grabbing of power or sustained misuse of power. * Everyone who can read and write and such, -- or some analogous definite, neutral, non-excluding legal principle -- can vote over the various governing positions which are regularly changed, but never over 'group', 'party' or 'organisation'. This voting happens in regions which ideally have a maximum limit in size, concerning all and any local governing positions there. Such regions need not be called 'countries' and they need not to be identified with currencies (but there must be no less than four different currencies so that the richly important fluctuating currency interactions can happen nonetheless). * In order to prevent people from more or less covertly making 'parties' all the same, anyone not just someone can present themselves as eligible to be elected -- indeed, in a more advanced society than that seen in the 20th century, everyone are automatically presented as eligible to be elected, given a very fair neutral and objective screening process (excluding those who have been criminally condemned less than a certain number of years ago, but -- what with the fallibility of human judges and police and such -- being forgiving about such a past). * Furthermore, to prevent clans or dominant individuals from trying to force election results, many more than the available changable rulership positions must be elected, and a neutral computer program selecting by means of a Relatively Free Fluctuation Generator selects, by its coincidence number, in each case from this larger group. * Moreover, also, it must be clear that a uniform voting technology must ensure one vote one time for each well-identified person in a secret and very secure way, with a technology easily within reach for everyone in each region or area, in a context in which it is -- by publically repeated official statements and by strong enforcement by police, forbidden to try to work out what any others have voted or are going to vote in any way whatsoever, also so that statistics over likely results is ruled out in order to increase the vitality of the real voting process. Nobody can try to force anyone to vote in any way, and nobody has to declare what they have voted to anyone afterwards -- not even to the dearest friends. It follows from these points that while each person who is up for voting must provide some factual information about herself e.g. by means of electronic technology -- some photos, some facts about skills and about successful former work experiences and such, propaganda by this person or others so as to try to coerce anyone into voting in a particular manner must be considered on the side of the law. Although, naturally, articles about themes in general and with reference also to what some people say and do, including some people who are up for voting soon, must be considered proper journalism. This will greatly vitalise the activities of society both in between as well as during election periods, since the freedom from person-propaganda during election periods leads to a continuity in clear, good thinking among journalists whether or not there is an election. The still more advanced society will recognise what in effect are power positions though apparently not necessarily power positions, and apply similar or same voting principles to all of these. The rules which are foundational in order to constantly aspire to a noncorrupt interchange of the appropriate open ruling positions must obviously be beyond the range of what can be changed by anyone in the ruling positions: they must, once established on a wise ground, be considered beyond the reach of any person. HUBBLE PEOPLE ARE IN NEED OF MONEY -- And so we hear they are "fortunate to witness this galaxy-baby being born near the birth of the universe" [As of 2011:1:26 (evening, as for GMT hours)] Author of article can contacted at email@example.com] It ain't a birth hospital, but these folks -- they call themselves "astronomers", and also "scientists" -- though one doubts they have ever read their Popper nor even Carnap -- they sound like nannies, crooning over their little new-borns as they are so fortunate to witness. Or, to be more precise, they sound like they are in some desperate need for more tax-payer money to upgrade their latest toy, some monsterous machine with big lenses hovering up there among all the satellites and the junk from defunc satellites. One hears on otherwise extremely well-dialogized news stations like BBC World Service -- no questions asked -- that a blur brought forth on a computer screen is a galaxy being shaped near the birth of the universe some thirteen billion years ago. One has heard, perhaps, that the brain has some such number of neurons (and many times that number of glia cells), and one could ask: just how many of those neurons are being used when these so-called scientists are pronouncing these things? Up there in outer space, there is no way one can have satisified the agreed-upon foundational scientific criterions as for the data to provide anything even remotely near such certainty as we hear spoken by these money-greedy star-gazers. As one point, consider the extreme number of assumptions involved in going from any number as recorded by a photocell encapsulated behind a lens over to saying that -- when this data has been processed by a number of gadgets and computer programs in control of an elite group -- this "is" a galaxy, whether in formation or having been formed. This is not data over which one theorises. This is theory, loads of it, tons of theory, none of which have been confirmed in any strong scientific sense of the word, but which have become an accepted way of talking among some people who for psychological, not scientific, reasons, have come to dominate among certain dominating scientific magazines (so-called). Secondly, just about everything the astronomers do -- except when they land a box on an asteroid and bring it back, and do so repeatedly -- and some such far more mundane affairs -- is entirely cut off from that essential scientific criterion which they are committed to apply in the more critical of cases, for as many theories and as many parts of each theory as possible: namely repeated experiments where one adjusts the contingencies intelligently and so as to block out bias. In contrast, this little group which with its technology, -- a technology which is far from simple, also a criterion which is sought-for -- is doing nothing but inventing clever or not-so-clever after-explanations for phenomena they have not possibly any certain grounds either for detailing as for content, nor for setting a date to. They might propose the universe was created at April 1, about 13,000,000,000 B.C., lunchtime, and back it up by some obscure pixels on their computer screens said to represent some final proof, and all the world will know is that the Swedish Academy will shower Nobel Prices over them, the Swedish King will smile and the interviewer will ask them how come they have such great intuition (that, he could have added, makes them get all this Nobel price money on so brittle grounds) -- for this little fake community of dead-certain so-called scientists know how to take care of its own. If any one of these mutually hypnotising scientists break with the prevailing dogmatic interpretation of their extremely sparse data this scientist will be kicked out of the group -- just as, to take a famous example, Sir Fred Hoyle was kicked out when he a great number of years ago showed that Nasa's data after the first Mars expedition to determine the possibility of (micro)organisms there was wholly inadequate relative to the certainty of the conclusion they came with -- never mind those non-existing (or existing) microorganisms, it took them a decade and more to figure out that he was totally correct, and sent up a bunch of additional studies. The scientific community has no right to follow the rules of fashion in theorizing, -- they are, in general, paid by taxpayers and sponsored by companies in order to break with fashion in theorizing, and instead seek to gather data while doing a bit of healthy multiplication of theories over them, noting how some theories sometimes are found more trustworthy than others, and how new and other interpretations of data are always possible. What with the fluctuations of funding and the brittleness of the promises of politicians and also companies to provided consistent sponsoring to that extremely important part of the activity of humankind called 'science', it is not strange that scientists become so greedy after money that they stop, here as in all other areas of science, from doing any much science, and start talking the talk that sets money flowing instead. After all, scientists are just as extremely rediculous as everyone else. Instead, therefore, we have got to work out new schemes: funding ought to be given to individuals, not to projects, not to groups, and not based on how clever they talk, but based on whether they win in a lottery over scientific money or not. Publishing of scientific reports ought to happen by each scientist creating her own publishing company, within that budget -- the same budget which must be applied to create technology. In that way, Science, Nature, and the academies of science around the world won't have the meaningless, corrupt power, based on loyality to each other within the group, as they presently have over scientists. All the Western magazines which published great stuff by de Broglie, Einstein, Dirac and others in the early 20th century are at present fundamentally in an unhealthy state based on over-publishing of entirely insignificant and often highly over-technical reports with a fragmentary language understood hardly by anyone, no matter how many ph.d.'s, -- and most of the articles are written by Chinese researchers who are dogmatically anti-philosophical in their interpretation due to the marxism of their regime, which forbids anything that smacks of theology. There are also way too many people calling themselves 'professors', so many, in fact, that this label has no significance whatsoever of any kind anymore. This has also lead to a meaningless pervasiveness of pointless 'higher degrees' and ph.d.'s across the world, all contributing to non-thinking and non-science, just when the world needs thinking and science. By removing the prestige of some publication arenas, and by distributing money to all with a science focus, organized by means of some kind of objectivity analysis of whether the person indeed does produce works characterised by pluralistic theoretical interpretations over data, as well as by pluralistic interpretations over what the data means in themselves, but giving more to some on a lottery foundation rather than on the present extremely whimsical and greed-enforcing premises, and making it the obligation of each scientist to edit and publish own works, the whole area of science would clean up. One can almost say, it would start. For science as depicted in the most mature bits of the works of e.g. Karl Popper, supplemented by wise extension bits, is a norm, an ideal, of an activity which can hardly have been said to have begun, as yet, in 2011.