There's a couple of solid observations I've made since the Referendum, along the lines of how do people communicate their ideas and opinions and information about Brexit and the Referendum Question. There's two questions which can be rehearsed that mostly cover what should be reported:-
- "So how did you get involved in Brexit/Referendum/politics?"
- "So tell me how you voted / which was the correct result / make me feel better about the whole thing?"
The problem I notice is that any answer is treated as "trivia"; another piece of information which does not fit into their current models of understanding and you can see their response revert straight back to their previous closed conclusions: Emotionally not satisfied mostly is the result yet again arrived at. Even saying that any answer to the above won't satisfy them, is not satisfying to them or not treated seriously. Perhaps a big problem is the conditioning of answers in the form of exam answers or the newspaper "pro vs con" balanced argument? These forms are superficial to what Dr. North (2014) in his FLEXCIT speech in Dawlish pointed out is such a complex subject.
Complexity of Government/Governance: Comparing a telephone from 1950 to a modern smartphone 2014 - "there is no getting around it".
So what is so special about these two sorts of questions? Here it is: Providing an answer does not work with most people. It takes a lot more and in a lot more different ways to produce effective communication, is my finding anecdotally.
Just reading Pete North's latest review of the year: A year in Brexitland. I agree, personal life is more significant to me than politics and that is healthy attitude I think and feel. But I think there is more room for optimism than:-
"...but it will be the same people tinkering in the same old ways taking their cue from the media rather than dealing direct with the people. We will be governed through their distorted prism once more. The establishment is as healthy as ever it was. Brexit hasn't made a dent."
The fact is we know our starting point, because FLEXCIT is a "fact of existence". Thus we can begin "our future work". We also if you rewatch the video above, defeated FEAR or FUD. This is itself though the means were shoddy and somewhat through unrelated reasons, a very positive result in itself for the UK; ironic given many of the Remain voters greatest fear is to put hateful/angry people in power and thus did many such voters vote to Remain in the EU.
In the previous blog I broadly discussed the decay of politics and the sort of paralysis of inaction or ineffective response to change that erodes the wealth of nation (it's people's resourcefulness). The reverse attitude and values are needed if we are to create our own future politics, not a prisoner of history as The Great Deception suggests through so much research:-
"Giri (義理) is a Japanese value roughly corresponding to "duty", "obligation", or even "burden of obligation" in English. It is defined as "to serve one's superiors with a self-sacrificing devotion" by Namiko Abe. This value is so integral to Japanese culture that the conflict between giri and ninjō, or "human feeling", is said to have been the primary topic of Japanese drama since earlier periods in history. Today, social critics decry the diminishing influence of giri on shinjinrui, the new generations of Japan, who pursue an individualistic path in life that seems quite disparate from traditional Japanese culture."
Why should people choose to be part of a creative movement of politics when it is such a cynical arena to operate within? I can't answer for others, but for myself I'll point out the above concept from Japan of "Giri": The fact of FLEXCIT's existence, it's potent source of knowledge compels a duty to "spread" this knowledge in the ways that are effective and productive.
Creating those ways is the work that will hold most meaningful outcomes for our political futures. The forms they take will appear and be described historically as "revolutionary" if we succeed.
