She said in here deeply feminine command of her being, that a change was needed. That it might happen, but the torrential change both personally & collectively will be extremely agonizing. She winked & I certainly couldn't ascertain why. How out of place, it was almost like a come on; like she was luring me in, forcing me to be interested. So, I sat down gazing up at her in wonderment. Not really desiring her but, more in awe of her; what was she doing, thinking? She continued in a manner that hit me as flowing, absolutely fluid, almost as though this was intended for the two of us, to be engaged in this very way, at this very moment. I'm here to suggest to you that there is a crushing need for global governance, was her next words. The upshot is that, if such global governance was implemented, many of the acute and beyond national crisis's we are currently facing: be it, ecological catastrophe, including deforestation and pollution in the air and water, economic misjudgments, overwhelming famine for humans, the wiping-out of so many animal species and so on. These crisis's perhaps can still be dissolved to some large measure. I tentatively interject, blushing & with a horse high-pitch sound, manage to muffle out the question: How would we do that ~ she looks at me kindly. I mean, umm, would it have that much of an effect, ahh putting, or installing a global governance system? And what exactly do you mean by global governance system?

At this point I manage to take a deep breath. She crouches down & looks into my eyes. And says, we must grow, we must grow together. She stands up with joy, turns, my heart sort of fluttering, wow strange. We can't have a few nations grow technologically, psychologically and so forth, without the rest of the people on the planet doing the same, such a practice at this point in time, will spell utter disaster & is spelling utter disaster. You'll get a further tension between those countries that live within a pre-modern context and other countries living within a modern and post-modern context. In other words, the haves & have-nots will be even further polarized which is exactly the last thing humans and other organisms on this planet need. In other words, if the polarization continues, a volcanic eruption of violence will pour over the sides with the pre-modern world demanding to be recognized; as they'll feel the modern and post-modern world are not making room for them.

My reasoning skills seem to kick in, finally. Wait, wait I say to her, we haven't needed any global governing system previously, I mean things have changed yes, no doubt. But, humans have been governed by national democracy-like governments for a few thousand years. And, I have yet to hear of any better way to have people live together, there have been no other theories that better those democracy-like theories already on the table that I've ever heard about. Yeah I mean, with the exception of some small adjustments that have been VERY useful along the way, the democratic system is the best we got. Are you suggesting that we ought to out-rightly get rid of these democracies cause', from what I know about these things, which isn't that much, that seems flat-out wrong. I mean without a democracy of some kind the power more easily floods in a authoritarian direction. You get the super-powerful on the top & beaten-down peasants on the bottom. I guess we have communism and a few other governing-styles as alternatives but, at least as far as communism goes it hasn't had a very good success rate. I mean, humm, it's not realistic to believe people would establish a classless, stateless social system. A system where everyone has roughly equal grabs at the goods produced. Maybe, at a restaurant with like-minded people a system like that might kinda, work. But, not in the rather chaotic wildly differing human-sphere we call our planet, it may be cool idea and all but, it just ain't gonna' happen.

No, she says, as she sits beside me, at this point her temperament almost appears to be one of sadness. How quickly she changes moods I think to myself & with no reservations. Communism no, democracy-like yes, BUT one person one vote unfortunately won't work either. I'm biting my lip and its starting to hurt a little, odd. Humm, yes, if we allow one person one vote within a global-governance context, I'm afraid that we'll most probably end up with some kinda authoritarian tyrant in charge she says sadly. Exactly the outcome you and almost everyone else on this planet wants to avoid.

To Be Continued...

Again the lucidity kicks in... it must be hormones seeping into the brain or something...ha wait, wait: two things. One, we already have a tyrant essentially in charge of the most powerful country on earth; How does this alternative democratic system really compare to what we've already got? And secondly, I'm not ready to give up my vote, and am damn sure many others would feel absolutely the same about that; even in a corrupt society some kind of equal voting system is still wanted. At this point, she actually rests her hand on mine. To be utterly honest, there was a degree of fear creeping up on me, due to the depth of this engagement. Both on the intellectual level & the emotional, I've felt this way a few times before and it's unsettling. The principles of democracy emphasize the importance of the individual in the context of government & we definitely want that to continue, she says nodding in my direction, boy I think to myself, I'm like a child needing to be lead along here, she's not easy to follow and I'm just trying to keep up to her. But, at the same time we need to establish a wider collective. So, we need to emphasize both the individual & the collective aspect of human relationships equally, instead of putting hyper-importance on the individual, sacrificing the collective sphere to a high degree as we tend to do in our society is so dangerous, and causes so much pain within our being. And this new collective is not simply a town, city, or nation, this new collective would be truly planetary. The other collectives would not be erased either. You'd have all the other levels of collectives operating to some degree, hopefully in harmony plus this new, this truly planetary one; that is, if things go well.

You see, she say's, that's the historical trend to become wider, more encompassing, more embracing; she pauses and looks down, when things are going well! We've moved from clans to tribes to nation-states to outright nations we are at a juncture I believe and others as well, that the leap will be either hugely forward or, backward... and maybe, a little of both at the same time. We have a choice now, to leap into the wondrous obviously, wild frontiers of a planet-centered government or, regress to the already history-grooved past that would be, in the end, more painful for us as humans to experience then taking this giant and heroic leap forward, yes? She says with a beaming smile.

Hey, she just asked me a question but, framed it super-awkwardly. As though she knew the answer, and to be honest I wasn't really paying attention, it's hard to follow her mind the thoughts are so big & meandering but yet, seem to have some kind of profound coherency but, it's like a different kind of logic compared to the stuff they teach in schools (at least the stuff that I know about). O.K., I think to myself the question must have been, leap forward into a wondrous future or, die inwardly, no wait, regress technologically or, something hummm, is that sort of the choice?

She grabs my hand and we stand up together. And now she starts walking. We're outdoors, underneath some rather lush trees that I look up at. Suddenly a bird soars over our heads and squawks loudly. Beautiful she utters, looking at me joyously.
My train of thought is broken again to notice that her eyes are so bright; ha it's almost like there's mini-flashlight shining through the back of her eyes! Oh, that question... hum, well yeah, we have formed bigger governments, but that could totally just be coincidence that they've grown the way we have. It sounds too prophetic for my liking, I say almost obnoxiously. Dear, this is not about what you would like, not personally, sorry, what's happening is bigger then you, and me. Which gets us right back to your question on voting. If we allow a strict democracy of one person one vote on a world-wide scale, I think (and I think some of the science is on my side here) we as a people would easily slide into having a strongly ethnocentric global leader. A what, I question, as I stumble over a rock that seemed to pop out of nowhere. A leader that tends to be absolutistic or overly dogmatic and very much us against them, whoever that might be! Why would that be? I say. Because that's the mindset that the majority of the world's population holds; a strong sense of us against them bound within an absolutistic, dogmatic mindset. Not to belittle anyone, actually totally on the contrary but, most other humans on this planet have not had the blessed experiences that we Westerners have had. The technologies, the cultural freedoms, the pluralistic ideals (which have a contradiction at the very heart, particularly when pushed into extreme relativism, which will be talked about later). The context of so much of the world is still hung on the older pre-modern ideals even in the west and, the best we can do is find a way to honor these ideals but, not allow a particular dogmatic framework to over-arch a truly planetary collective that is most needed at this present time!!! We need a leader that can embrace and use the pre-moderns mythic and magical tales. As well as, the modern's mind which, has an exuberant fervor for science, objectivism and the truth. And post-modernism's ability to deconstruct, pick apart, net-work & dialogue. We need a global leader that can embrace all these aspects of his or, her own being. Because, all these differing ways of thinking can in fact, be held within a single individuals mind in a kind of resonant harmony. With that thought released, we both look to the sky as a cloud that's shaped almost like a castle, blows lowly over our heads. This time I say, beautiful.

To Be Continued...

Still looking upwards at the low flying cloud I hear "Crab apples" & with that she's running toward a yonder tree. Okay, I'm totally confused. What's happening; I need a few moments to digest all this. Yip, I try to rehash..., she thinks that culturally and it sounds like socially, we as humans have been working with ever greater input of complexity as history has unfolded. As she said, we've moved from clan's to tribes, to what was it nation-states, I think? To outright nations. Hummm, and those social advances would be tied to the changes in human activities, I guess.

I'm kicked out of my deep thoughts when I hear her yell, catch. However, the sun's directly in my eyes and I can't see a thing. Then, I feel a sharp pain as I'm hit by a crab apple square in the nose. Ahhh, I yell. Ohh sorry, she howlers with a sincere tone. My nose starts dripping a little blood. no, ahh, don't worry; I just need something to wipe the blood away. O.K., she says, we could go back and grab a cloth or something. There's not much out here other then, well leaves, would that do.? We'll, give it a shot, I say. She walks over to a maple tree as she stuffs four or, five apples that she was holding in her palm up to this point into her pockets, she picks a couple big leaves and returns to me with them.

O.k., she says retuning to her thoughts. You should know about something I believe is true; my bet is knowing about it might clear up some of the confusion your feeling right now. How do you know I'm confused, I say a bit defensively? Smiling she says, you've been wincing so much that by the time this conversation is over you'll have permanent wrinkles on your forehead. Ha, I say finding her joke totally not funny. Kay, when I say something like "I like apples" you, or at least most people, she gives me a joking very light fisted nudge on the shoulder, know roughly what I'm talking about, a sweet fruit that often is red or, green, round, usually not much bigger then an adult hand and so forth. We, in other words can do if we focus on it, a pretty good job of getting ideas out of our heads into others. Some people call this dialoguing process Mutual Understanding. Were two people arrive at roughly, never absolutely, (it would seem) but roughly the same understanding of something out there in the world. Why do I think this is so important to our discussion do you think? I shrug still confused. This process is something that happens in someone's mind sure there are physiological things happening when I think this thought serotonin here, dopamine there. But, I believe that this interior happening in my mind cannot be reduced to the physiological happening in my brain related yes, identical no. So when you and me reach a mutual understanding about an apple, for example its qualities (weight, texture and so forth) and your attitudes towards the apple (You love the taste of them but find the skin annoying) we are tapping into each others interiors to some degree. Now, connecting this idea to social advancements changes in our collective values, what we may hold as good and true and beautiful. These advancements come from many sources, be them scientific, mathematical, kinesthetic and so forth. To transmit these personal advancements and make them truly social, a degree of mutual understanding must take place between individuals that tend to think roughly alike. The majority of individuals share and hold common bonds (our collective values and ideals) with the others in a society. Although some may have more complex values and others that are radically imaginative there are many values that the majority of peoples hold. One of the upshots is that when new innovations come about if we collectively go along with it, we make it out of some of the toils and snares we may find our selves in on this very bumpy earthly ride. But we can also easily cling to old dogmas that have been shown to be dubious in current situations. Oh excuse me again she says quietly, I'll be back in one moment.

Again grateful to have another moment to digest; but, thoughts of flying crab-apples still hold some of my attention. Gosh, this must be related to what she's saying too. That with each of these social arrangements new purposes or, maybe new values arises for the people that live within that society. New unfolding on the modes of technology leads to shifts in the social values. Humm, this could be bigger then I expected. Cause, she mentioned that the trend is to become wider more embracing, did she mean that what we value becomes wider and more embracing, or, or, maybe even how we think becomes wider and more embracing; like maybe we can make wider and deeper connections in regards to the nature of things? I still have lots of questions, I need more clarification on some of this stuff.

Ideas about freedom are all around us. Are we really free? Do we get to choose freely if we want to eat cheerios or fruit loops for breakfast. What do you think? Are we radically free to choose the cheerios or the fruit loops or, is this really a 'choice'? Are we totally totally governed by the social pressures and the physiological construction we are built of? Or, is something else entirely going on here? This problem runs deep. Maybe deeper then you think and surely deeper then I think. Before we really dig into your apparent or real choice of cheerios over fruit loops, raise your hand, put your hands up ya'll. Did you freely choose to do that ~ was it a radically free choice of yours? Was some or all of that 'choice' put into your head by me suggesting you to raise your hand and maybe you didn't raise your hand and was that radically free of you not to raise your hand?

You got a couple popular approaches here. One might argue hey, sure your a complex physical structure ~ there's a lot of things going on in a human organism and the human organism is equipped with this portion of the brain we call the neocortex. The neocortex, which arguable when working in conjunction with the rest of the body has this interesting outcome of allowing us to reason, to do logics and math, preform science and act morally, honor perspectives vastly different from our own, and create masterful pieces of art. Under this vision of the universe however, all that activity is explained fully and completely by the layout of the brain and it follows that soon the sciences will be able to explain away ideas of freedom. In other words, there is no freedom, all freedom stems from the complex physical organism which is acting on patterns. These patterns are already laid out and the actions of the human are simply outcomes of these patterns. There is no choice, there is no freedom.

You might see a big nose pop up over a nearby fence and ask you to engage in this debate. This person might tell you, your radically free, the sky of your choices truly are the limit, and it is simply your lack of imagination that's presently holding you down. This is the good and proper territory of the idealist. The idealist thinks you have freedom maybe even absolute freedom. In fact, the idealist might suggest that things are random that there are no patterns, no determinism at all, no governance. Your will, your mind alone, is what's determining your reality and to fully understand this is to fully open into the radical freedom your currently unaware of. Freedom properly understood under this view, allows you to will your future into reality ~ you are the absolute creator of your destiny.

Well, it does seem doesn't it that our mind is powerful. Our choices important, our thoughts and intentions central, as the idealist might posit, might suggest to us. But, its a really hard thing to fully toss the scientific perspective in the trash bin. Or, ignore that others have alter the choices we make. Our bodies are strangely similar to how they were yesterday aren't they. We probably did many things today that are almost an exact mimicry of yesterday. Simple things like walking, brushing our teeth, movements of the physical body when we're thinking. We seem to be rather patterned beings. Can both be true? Are not the idealist and the scientific perspectives opposites, contradictions, in complete opposition? Are we both free and determined simultaneously?

We live in a society of interpersonal interactions. These interpersonal interactions occur within an infrastructural landscape. So, the landscape of the infrastructure changes the way we communicate. If i'm talking to you in a subway it's probably going to be different from the kind of conversation I'd have with you outside on a farm 500 years ago. There was no subway system that idea was not present and so standing in a farm 500 years ago within your idea-matrix (all your ideas in your mind and the language you used) the idea of a subway was not present (nor the language to talk of such a device) ~ now the idea is present and the language to speak of it is here and that fact changes everything. It seems to literally slightly change how you think about everything else in your reality.

We might live in a interpersonal world but we are personal beings, are we not? There is no conceivable way that i can think of, for you to fully take on my perspective. (ain't you lucky, not having to step into this walking mixed-up mess that I am)! You cannot inhabit all my thoughts and ideas about the universe. So, in this sense I'm really alone. I'm me and there never will be another exact replica of me; hey, you can't get out of this either your also alone in this no replicas of you either (but more on this later). These ideas are embodied too. Its not like you have a thought and there is no change in the body. Your thought is bound up with your body. You think "boy, I love apples' and stuff is happening in your neurophysiology. That thought is bound up with the stuff of the brain and the rest of the body too. Those that believe there is no freedom [the determinists] say "thats all there is"... the physical brain firing chemicals this way and that and then this thing we call a thought happens (which will under this this view at some time in the future will be explained away by science). Is the brain and mind not-two? Is it not a lopsided approach to reduce your mind to your brain or your brain to your mind. Maybe, The brain is the mind in the most profound way. The mind can complexify and so too will the brain. The brain-mind under this view has no absolute stopping point for complexity. There are patterns but there's this chaotic unpredictable background as to where the brain-mind will go. You, your brain-body-mind can become more profound than it was yesterday. The pattern is there, society has complexified, and under this view there has been complexification of the human organism (the body-mind the two [which are really one] happen together... a new thought = new physiology). As you begin to understand mathematical integers the physical connections and the actual stuff of the brain reworks itself... a different landscape of the brain is being created ~ the stuff of the brain is changing.

There is a freshness in the next moment but this next moment carries with it all (or a lot of) the previous moments... and maybe a lot of whats gone before is embedded in you, or actually, worked into your physical landscape the nature of you as an embodied being. Could it be, that you are in a sense a physical embodiment of the last 13 or14 billion years of evolution (if you like I believe in evolution). You are an example of the edge of where evolution has got to and you are bringing into existence fresh patterns with every action you preform. You can actually maybe become MORE free by understanding the degree to which your actions are already laid down, already determined. you are maybe a rag-tag composite, a construction of novelty (newness) and the pre-laid patterns of the past (atoms, organs, out-dated ideas) of (oldness or determinism). You are both free and determined right now. With new ideas you build physically a new brain to house it and the two are not different (just the language we use separates them). You can be, to the degree to which you are manufacturing novel ideas a more and more free being. So, are you freely choosing cheerios over fruit loops maybe and I feel this is the sane approach both are true, your choice is there is background freedom within a roughly deterministic landscape.