Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Red Cliffs Of Dawlish
Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Thursday, 9 June 2016

Intermission: How To Argue About European Union Membership Effectively

Planet of The Apes: An exemplar of a time and place shift in the meaning behind the story from the audiences' expectations and understanding until this final frame.

In this blog I've deployed a couple of devices frequently:-
  • Uses sets of 3's (people generally manage up to this number)
  • Using an alternative subject to lead into the political subject of the blog
  • Frequently using a non-linear association of themes and topics; effectively providing information in a form for curiosity building (attempt at).
  • The title above refers to "effectively", which is just how such titles are written and hence expected...
I don't have the discipline nor knowledge depth on a lot of the subjects to produce the high quality of other bloggers. But I think it is possible to be able to use "Thinking Tools" to help people consider the subjects more effectively and that's what I've mostly attempted to do, most of the time.

This blog, is going to carry on this "method" about "arguing about the EU with people effectively". But it will also build on the previous sequence of blogs I've been building recently:-
  1. Decription
  2. Explanation
  3. Argument
  4. Perception
  5. Which Argument? Relationships (subjective orders of intentionality) or Technical (The plethora of regulations and standards that can be objectively studied)
  6. Using effective argument via story structure to a general audience.
  7. Using an exemplar of 5. (next blog after this intermission).
Ok, the above is a final scene from The Planet Of The Apes, and it is a bit more dismal than intended, but it's also very iconic as well as an optimal fit to explaining 6. above:-

A very different time, a very different place and a very different reflection of people - than previously believed.

In the story of The Planet Of The Apes, some spacemen blast off into space and something wrong happens. They then find themselves crash landing on a mysterious alien planet, ruled by Apes who are developing their own civilization. Anyway after some adventures, in which the main protagonist believes the apes are still very savage animals despite their apparent mockery in emulating humans such as riding horses and wearing clothes; he stumbles across the above beach and a realization overwhelms him: The alien planet is in fact Earth and what has happened is that the spacemen have travelled in space and arrived back in the future many many years later. What the Statue of Liberty represents is that humans obviously suffered a thermo-nuclear war or holocaust and set back their civilization by millenia in which time apes had evolved separately and started to assume the civilized role on the planet with humans reverting to the more "savage and primitive species" after their fall from grace.

Now that's a fascinating bit of sci-fi, but the structure of the story that witholds this crucial information while subjectively we believe the "good" protagonist, Charlton Heston's character is right about the Apes: They're the cruel savages, not the poor humans! And then "Bam!" that story is turned upside down.

So it is with describing the EU then explaining it then arguing about it BEFORE you've even got to the stage concerning Brexit.

Instead most people are stuck in the mindset of the character of Charlton Heston, they can ONLY go on their own standards and what they see and hear all the while befuddled by the politicians and news-media's output. And hence if you are familiar with the two different versions of the EU story, the "External" out in the Open one and the "Internal" underground one you can tell which story is being told by people: The mirage vs the one based on research and factual historic findings ie the real reality.

For example some of the "savage things the Apes talk about":-
  • German Cars!
  • The EU will kick out Ex-Pats if we leave!
  • 350m£ cost of EU!
  • Immigration is the only real reason to leave!

 A good place to start: Knowledge of the beginning of the story is needed to make sense of the middle of the story then the end of the story.

So, here's my recommendation: All this is the stage where people are attempting to arguing about Brexit (remain or leave) and little do they realize that it's like they have been given some frames of a few seconds from a film/story that is well over 4 hours in length and those frames are perhaps in the middle of the film jumbled up!

You're going to "fill in the gaps" in the story relying only on what you already think you've seen and heard and hence accorded with what you'd prefer to think the story ends like (most likely according to your own personal temperament!)!

What people really need is a beginning and then a middle and then an end to the story and then give that overview to them, then let them talk about their "memes" above and insert those frames in the right portion of the story and hence add the relevant context which then changes those memes meanings and may then finally help people perceive things more clearly...

In fact I've been doing this and people struggle but they are mightily curious like solving a puzzle or working out more and more of this increasingly interesting story. They'll still put up resistance to the "Charlton Heston Moment" however!!! ie changing their minds!!! But that takes a lot more time: It's emotionally impactful arrival.

But what I've found incredibly useful is to position beginning at the beginning with the story and most if not all of that knowledge I've found in The Great Deception. Often if a listener asks a question, it's necessary to "rewind" to somewhere within The Great Deception "His-Story" point out the genesis, invariably a political motivation concealed (hence deception in the title) and then "fastforward" to the present "meme" frame and re-explain how it fits into the story, bearing in mind the listener little realizes they're still on the side of the humans (the propaganda version of events) and think the apes are savages (the actual context). For example people who say the UK is too overcrowded and immigration must come down or be stopped, it's very tricky to tell people how Migration fits into the story in it's correct connected and coherent place, first some backtracking then some explanation of the middle of the story which means that in fact the solution is to "park" Freedom of Movement as it's only a component of the full composite of Migration! But you can start improving that by voting Leave at least.

Finally for a decision that is supposed to shape the next 10yrs of our political lives, very little thought and commentary has been given to the "ending" of our story namely Globalization. And if you can manage to talk about the Middle (FLEXCIT) and steer people towards reframing from EU (Political Relationship error) towards Globalization (the technical revolution above the EU) and then I think it is possible to provide people with a puzzle where they can start to work it out more and more for themselves and feel satisfaction at doing so instead of the confusion of butting heads with those that disagree with them over those memes (stuck in the middle arguments).

The 3 components of Knowledge to bread it down (or in story form: Beginning-Middle-End):-
  • The Great Deception
  • FLEXCIT: The Market Solution
  • Globalization of Technical Regulations and Standards (we don't seem to have a fancy name for this yet!!)
If you are going to be able to argue effectively and recreate the story for people to learn from you have to possess the knowledge from these. You'll find great interest in the history The Great Deception, you'll find a lot of resistance in FLEXCIT (the present because people don't realize they're merely actors within a larger film itself measured by variable time frames (eg General Elections 5yrs, EU Treaties 9.x Years av., generational change in decades) and then you'll find a huge amount of bafflement about the "ending" but providing people with this alternative and "what might happen in the next bit of the film"... it is helpful to resolving being stuck in the middle part of the film (this referendum).

I'm very convinced this is the useful way to argue, for a number of reasons:-

  1. I've successfully used it and observed the reception and reactions of people using these materials (mainly from , The Leave Alliance, The Blogger's Army (see side-bar)). Hence I can report on whether or not it works and in what way it does work and gauge some measure of that all important "Emotional Digestion" in people.
  2. I compare it to what is churned out on TV and in Books and otherwise, for example:-
 Challenging To Use: Mostly Unstructured and Semi-Structured Information

 Disconnected and extremely variable quality of information mixing in high proportions of misinformation

 Tim Martin (Wetherspoons EU Referendum Special Magazine): Sources Politicians rhetorical arguments with low structure of information and often poor research of details. Martin's is usefully around The Central Point Argument of the EU Membership Question but could be much more powerful structured as I've suggested above.

Once you have this "full story structure" from research in place, you can see that the means and methods and mediums of information of politics delivery to people in the UK is incredibly "primitive" (Planet of the Apes reference!) for the purpose it's set out to produce: Informing and educating and enhancing national democratic debate and argument to reach national decision-making on the past 40+ yrs with a view to at least the next 10yrs for the UK's Membership of the EU or it's alternative in an increasingly globalized and changing world.

Pete North is worried about where democracy will go if we vote Remain: What scares me most if we vote remain.

It's merely a symptom of the poor ways in which the UK carries out it's so-called systems of democracy and hence the poor results that are more likely to follow or by chance sometimes not! Correcting how we go about doing democracy may help. Assuming the same old channels of communication work or are adequate may be a barrier to more political progress that itself may open up more progress in other areas?

 A Map Argument (or decision-tree flow argument): One of my previous attempts to structured information. "Story Structure" in this blog is another attempt for use in verbal arguments to coordinate WHERE/WHEN/WHY which need to precede HOW in peoples' understanding of the story and that leads to eveeeeerybodies' favourite in politics as evidenced on tv and radio talking-heads: WHO (the least important perhaps?)

I have not checked, but The Great Deception is ripe for Radio Serialization with a story structure and mild editing to ensure it's read at a brisk pace, which matches modern audiences' current "More Salt!!!" taste buds in how they prefer their information to taste!!

Why so so many so-called "experts" on this subject fail to mention it and begin the story at the beginning... or even appreciate the full range of Brexit papers categorization in the middle let alone that "Globalization" future. For 40+ years the public has listened to their attempts at politics on the EU and it's been mostly a complete waste of the UK's potential capacities for collective action and energy.

Perhaps one of the biggest arguments against political elites in charge of large decision-making exclusive of people: The history of the UK's Membership of the EU.