When science isn't

There is a long history to questions of mind; it could begin perhaps with Socrates, who focused on the spirit as the only real object. Husserl explored intentionality, while Descartes tipped the issues into a cauldron of doubt culminating perhaps with Bishop Berkeley arguing it is all illusion corrected by some wag who said but God is always about so the world always is.

This is just so much imaginative poppy cock.

The rule of strategic thinking in science says that topics must be considered only within the framework of their ground, and only then in relation to the understanding as it exists of the issues of ground and that discussions of any topic if it is to remain intellectually rational must not go beyond the bounds dictated by the available
answers to the issues of ground.

What does that mean for social science, say, phenomenology? That any and all discussions of phenomenology relate to human psychology, and any and all discussion of phenomenology must be related to a general theory of psychology which identifies the causal issues underlying our psychic processes and the sum total of our psychic existence.  Any discussions on our existence not related to a general theory of psychology must be regarded as nothing more than speculation; not science, not even effective rational intellectual effort.

Real intellectual effort must be bounded by what we know and work to the edge of what we do not and need to find out, beyond that it is imaginative fiction.We do need a place to start, it is exactly the same as building a house, without solid foundations…well, I am sure you know the rest. The serious starting questions are as follows.

1. If we had a complete and thorough general theory of epistemology, what would be its structure and what would it tell of actual knowledge and it relation to the objects of that knowledge?
2. If we had a complete and thorough general theory of psychology what would be its structure and what would it tell us of causality behind actual mood and conduct in actual situations? 
3. If we had a complete and thorough general theory of society what would be its structure and what would it tell us of causality behind actual societies in actual situations? If we had a complete and thorough general theory of cause, what would it tell us of causality in all the above situations and theories?
4. What is the relationship between all answers to the above questions?

The answers to questions 1, 2, 3, and 5 are all at www.grlphilosophy.co.nz. The theory of society is drafted, but not yet available. Taking this platform, I will now offer the summary answers to the above questions of phenomenology.


One of the greatest failings of virtually all social science with phenomenology as the perfect example, is the failure to distinguish between a variable and it values. For example the so called hard and easy problems of consciousness. Consider a pendulum; it is described by time being equal to a constant multiplied by the square root of the length over the gravitational constant (which is not quite constant). Now, what is the period of the pendulum in Timbuktu? Well, you ought to say, how can I know that without going to Timbuktu and measuring the length? Exactly! Length is the variable describing the system, for any actual example the value relative to the situation must be measured and then inserted into the theory to calculate that which the theory is able to describe.

Now imagine a complete and accurate general theory of psychology: what will it tell us of two people conversing in Dubai, Beijing, Mumbai, or Rangiputa? The issue is exactly the same; the theory can only describe and direct attention to the variables that are operational in describing the system under study, in this situation two people conversing, to describe the system it is necessary to go the place to measure values of the variables and insert them in the theory to gain that which the theory is able to describe.

All science is constrained, consisting of only variables and their relationships. Once the values of variables are selected it is no longer science; rather it is descriptive (normative) of actual situations. The easy problem of consciousness is fully solved with a theory of variables and the relations between them that describe the system under study.

The hard problem of consciousness…what is it like to be?...has to do with the values of the variables, not the variables or their relationship. For human kind, the so called hard problem of consciousness is fully resolved in literature, poetry, and song since these literary activities all largely seek to describe living experience: But, this is not science, and should science try to go there it need don the cloak of writer and poet, not scientist.

How ideas exist is the topic of a paper, and I will not review the theory here, merely stress that ideas are shown as existing, and as being causal in the theory of human mood and conduct. That does mean you need review the theory of cause so that the sentence has the precision the theory affords it.

Meaning lies in our world view and the attachment of feelings to ideas in our world view. Any discussion of meaning immediately goes beyond science; it has fully to do with values of variables not the variables themselves or the relationship between those variables. The model has it that ideas exist in mind rather like on a scratch pad, further that we have the ability to know how to move our body, a learned set of skills nested into any action we take.

So, when we see an idea we like, we are largely able to enact it if it is within the scope of what we can do, we are unable to do what we cannot do, as silly and obvious as that sounds, it is important, since it implies judgement of our abilities and skills in any circumstances, and how often have we bitten of more than we could chew?

With that structure we have choice, intent and freewill. Moving much beyond the structural aspects we then become entangled in values of variables that is not science, a classic example here is in political choice, when it is argued that some set of political values are better than some other, and in some way this is sociological cience when it is obviously values of variables and is no more science than Homers Iliad.

Free will, choice, intent and goals are all founded on the ability to select and implement one idea over another. A theory of psychology has to do with how these processes work, not which processes are operative in any person, nor which choices should be or are preferred by any person.

Immediate perception is the interaction between the perceptual structures on an observer and the perceptual field of the environment; it is mediated by neurology and dependent on the environment and results in active structures in our physiology that produce the sensory result. The sensory result is then linked with our psychology that is our views and feelings about the result, our knowledge of it and understanding of it, etc. Interpretation is secondary to the immediacy of the physiological perception. We perceive via events, an event defined as changes in Reality producing changes in the perceptual field, producing changes in our physiology (assuming our physiology is not defective): The object of all this processing stands in our minds in relation to the outside systems that contributed to the object in mind with the key issues of epistemology being the link between the object in mind (reality) and the object of Reality (that existing beyond us).

Note, as well, that objects are defined very precisely in terms of events, and are events with a rate of change slow in relation to the perceiving systems. So in effect, the idea of a static object is rejected in favour of the idea that everything is changing but some of that change is slow in relation to time scales relevant to some observers. Finally note that time is not seen as an aspect of the universe, but is only introduced by consciousness that note the period between events and so uses time to measure that period.

What do I experience when I experience an object?

Depends entirely on the meaning of the events for you (see the general theory of psychology). This immediately extends beyond science and into poetry and literature.

How do I know what is ‘real’?

In a nutshell, you don’t. To verify is to first seek out multiple inputs, such as sight, smell, sound, touch: so if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, smells like a duck, feels like a duck and is where you might sensibly expect to find a duck you got pretty good chance it’s a duck! Modern virtual reality is clear testimony to fact that without other inputs any one perceptual systems can be deceived (even if the technology not very good yet, it will get better!)

How do I know what is true?

Again, in that nutshell, you don’t. The only out is multiple inputs to the decision. Truth is not measured by any rule, but solely arises as an act of judgement. Modern legal systems proceed largely on basis of multiple inputs, each side, any other sound opinion, etc…Verisimilitude as argued by Popper I relate to the extent the topic is explored, and extent there are clearly many facets bought to account and all well argued, researched and reasoned. So physical science in general has high verisimilitude, whereas much social science does not, and modern phenomenology has very little indeed and is largely very confused.

How do we distinguish the ‘truth’ of a mad person over a sane person? Not always easy, take the impact of Hitler on a whole generation in Germany. I do not think Hitler mad, but the point still remains, very bad ideas accepted and acted out by a very large number of people who now look back with horror. Distinguishing bad ideas from good can only come from balance, the multiple inputs including trial and error that lead to a  balanced view and balanced actions. Balance is not easy to maintain, emotions are often not balanced, and an important function of emotional intelligence is maintaining balance.

How do I know the outside world exists?

In that damned nutshell, you don’t. The first issue is perceptual: An act of judgement, is it ‘real’, or is it virtual reality and not real…I introduced the terms ‘Reality’, capital ‘R’, to refer to the Reality beyond the perceptual field (so it could be a virtual reality field generator); and ‘reality’ little ‘r’, to refer to the unique interpretation we each make of circumstances. Big Reality is not psychological, little reality is; science aims to map big Reality.

The second factor is structural and involves the rule of relations which states that for there to be a relation between two objects each object must be independently discernable. Where this rule is not effective, then it is not possible to establish the relationship between the two objects. Imagine some object in mind, in reality, and one in Reality – say a tree or horse -how can you possible separate the object in reality from the one in Reality? You cannot, they interpose to the degree that the rule of relations is broken, hence who is surprised Bishop Berkeley questioned as he did. It is not possible as a matter of principle for an individual to establish the existence of an external world on their own. Modern CAT scans linking events in the brain to events outside the person offer some technology for relating events in reality with events in Reality, however, there is still the issue of meaning which no CAT scan can provide insight into, and the theory states that there never will be any such technology since no two people necessarily have the same neural events linked to the same meaning, and even if so, there is still the issue of the exact nature of the meaning for one person over another, nuance can completely alter meaning, and nuance could involve a small handful of neurons that barely register on a CAT scan.

How do I know me, or self? And what is ‘I’?

The general theory of psychology has considerable amount to say on the underlying structure involved in these issues, and I will not repeat it here. Suffice to say that ‘self’ and ‘I’ are constructed objects and can be fully discussed and accounted for within the framework of the theory. We can come to know ‘I’, ‘self’ and ‘me’ exactly as we can come to know and understand better any part of our psyche we select to conceptualise.

How do I know I exist?

Are you just some disembodied brain locked away in some preserving jar…? I think therefore I am, yes, well, maybe. Same problem as knowing the truth or knowing what is real or knowing the outside world exists? You need multiple inputs to verify and enable judgement that yes, I exist and function as a person, not merely a disembodied brain in a jar, or an energy cell in some machine world Matrix.

What is mind?

Within the theory ‘mind’ is accepted as a useful term to describe operation of the causal model of our psyche, our neurological processes are the mechanism of mind so all neurological processes hold a correspondence with events in mind, because of largely the complexity, plasticity and the variability with which ideas and feelings etc, are generated by our physiology, mind is not simply reducible to underlying neurological events. This insight is able to be deepened, the essential issue is begun with the question 'is knowledge continuous?'.

To make the question concrete we the have a brain, our neurology, and we have our mind, our psychology. If knowledge is continuous then the issue of reduction arises with our mind be 'reducible' to our neural functioning. If knowledge is not continuous and exists in domains, then neurology may be the mechanism of mind, but mind not reducible to neurology.

Consideration of domains of science must involve review of definition of how domains are formed in our knowledge (all these issues considered in depth in the papers at www.grlphilosophy.co.nz). So if mind is a major aspect of the domain of science called psychology, then these general principles of epistemology will bear significantly on the relation between psychology and the mechanisms of psychology namely the domain of science dealing with the brain and nervous system.

The problem of discontinuous knowledge gives rise to many issues, such as what exactly in a domain, how are domains defined, what exactly is the boundary between domain, etc. the question of whether or not knowledge is continuous is the formalization of an issue raised by Niels Bohr, when he formulated the complementarity principle seeking to resolve apparent perceptual and conceptual contradictions in physics.  Discontinuous knowledge with embedded unique and separate domains of science resolves the issues of concern to Bohr.

What is attention, how is it directed and how does it impact us? See the papers on the general theory for full account of these issues. 

Conclusion: Should you care I would be pleased to apply the base platform of models, theory and thought to any variation of these issues or questions. It is the underlying platform that bounds discussion on any topic and affords validity to the answers to the topic, and in the absence of a sound platform all is speculation built on sand; and so far most social science, phenomenology, psychology, organization and management theory, and sociology,  has seen little else than rampant speculation dressed as science.

Understanding what it is like to be ... you, me, he, she or thee

One of the crucial aspects of the philosophy is to follow through on a proposition long known, summed in the paradox of Hui Shih that a white horse is not a horse. What we have is the common problem of applying general terms to specific instances.

In the model of knowledge at www.grlphilosophy.co.nz the general and the specific emerges as a crucial distinction, in that what we experience, what we live are unique and specific ‘instances of’.

Ideas come to be through the process of grouping ‘instances of’ according to their properties.So the white horse is a specific 'instance of' the general idea of 'horse', hence a white horse is not a horse.

The crucial hypothesis underlying this process is that ideas are the creation of species and did not predate the species, in this instance the species being humanity. Thus follows the idea that the framework of human thought as it is today is the result of progressive unfolding and elaboration and creation, beginning at first with the simplest classifications, those being of such things the earliest people’s saw and to which they related. This would of its own postulate that the earliest paintings would be of animals or people, and would likely be quite stylistic and without full depth or perspective, since these are not intrinsic but would represent refinement of skill.

Ideas thus come to be, and they have a social and psychological reality equal to the physical reality of the white horse. Hence when we talk of a horse not being a white horse we do indeed refer to two quite different objects of equal reality and power to effect us. There is no paradox, nor any particularly difficult philosophical problem to be resolved, at least not within the theory of knowledge developed in the papers at www.grlphilosophy.co.nz.


What you can ask, has this got to do with consciousness? Well everything, but first let’s briefly recap the issues. First, the so-called easy problem: this is the solution to the ‘how’ problem of consciousness. That is the problem of mechanism, or the problem of the neural and psychological processes whereby consciousness comes to be at all. It is conceded that in time this will be solved. But once solved, what is it we will have?


The theory of knowledge developed here already has an answer to this question, since the question is about the nature of knowledge not about consciousness. Imagine we had a complete and accurate general theory of consciousness such that we could model with great accuracy the mechanisms whereby consciousness came to be. That we had applied all our faculties and criteria of judgment to the solution and were certain we ‘had it right’. What do we have?

Precisely we will have a set of variables and or systems of variables, we will have the relationship between those variables and systems such that we would know precisely the flow of a perturbation through the system. That is, if we changed one variable, we would know exactly how that change would then flow through the system as a whole. We may not know every underlying mechanism of every relationship, but we would have a full causal explanation of consciousness.

What precisely would this accurate theory tell us of my consciousness or yours right now? It can only tell us the variables to research and how those variables interact. So if I wanted to know or predict or otherwise understand the actual state of my consciousness I would have to gather the information about the relevant variables, put the data into the theory and calculate the result.


The hard problem of consciousness is what it is like to be conscious; it is the experience of consciousness at this or that instant. But wait, if we have a complete and accurate mechanistic model of consciousness, and if we then put in the relevant data, what ‘answer’ do we get? We can and must get the ‘answer’ of what it is like to be consciousness for that person at that moment. The theory is the horse the statement about my consciousness now is the white horse.


If we take a scientific theory, put in the data and calculate the result we have exactly the relationship between the general and instance of. In the case of consciousness the argument goes further, in that since it is the relationship between the general and instances of, then there are two types of instances of, first each example of the species is or has a unique consciousness. To predict otherwise proposes that all the values of all the variables in our model of consciousness are identical at the same time, this simply stretches too far to be credible. How I feel now, is not the same as how you feel now, we are different, therefore the values of the variables that make up the theory of conscious for you right now is different to the values for me right now.

Second, for each person, each unique instance, in this case each event is a unique example of their unique consciousness. There can be as a matter of principle no generalities of any scientific value relating the unique moments of consciousness of one person with those of another.

These ‘instances of’ our existence are called 'qualia'.

What do we know of these ‘instances of’, of qualia? Frankly a great deal, world literature, song, art and poetry are full of what it is like to be alive under such and such circumstances. The study of qualia is not and never can be science, because each example of consciousness and each moment for each example of consciousness are unique. But it gives rise to the beautiful, the soaring, the painful and the passionate that we call art, culture or literature. Beyond the control and understanding offered by science or technology lies all the best of us, expressed by those talented enough to grasp a moment, and put it in a way that relates and makes sense of our own moments.

Building a fair society

"All animals are equal but some are more equal than others". George Orwell's brilliant satire focused on the world's oldest political problem: How to create a fair society.

We do not know what to do.

But we do know what not to do. George Orwell showed us in his clear and accurate language. Changing one set of pigs for another does not solve the problem merely perpetuates it from another point of view. We must not allow for more pigs.

Toward those feeling aggrieved, who do not understand that making them the pigs will not correct the social problem, we need restraint and patience. Insights take longer in some but come eventually. Making the current aggrieved the pigs may satisfy their tensions but will inevitably give rise to other tensions which will eventually have their politcal expression.

We need to draw a line through today and determine firmly the past is past. Where grievances are legitimate then reparations are due. But, we must not codify the pig mentality. To codify inequality in law is not to correct mistakes of the past but to continue them.

All laws must fall equally on all citizens. When, I cry, oh when will we learn this simple, essential reality of our social future?

Who are we?

Society needs understood in two ways.

1. The social structure: The framework of law, history and social ethics that defines the processes operative within the society. 
2. The ways of living, the choices people make about how they want to live within the legal, historical and ethical framework.These ways of living are the cultures within the society. 

The traditional view of society  combines and confuses these two issues.
Academic sociology combines and confuses these two issues.
Politicians combine and confuse these two issues.
These two issues are combined and confused in popular opinion/attitudes. 

Where these issues are confused a society loses perspective on individual human spirituality and becomes essentially a tribe, where all are largely expected to conform.

The best modern example where these two issues are pressed firmly together is in Muslim society where one is expected to be a Muslim, conform to the Muslim way. The social structure allows limited variation, the right of the individual person to express their unique spirituality in the choice of how they wish to live is seriously moderated, even surpressed. They may be right, hence this is not a criticism, merely an observation drawn to make clear the difference between the Muslim social structure and resulting culture, and the western liberal plural social structure and resulting cultures.

What does it mean to live in a western liberal democcray? Well, it is tough. I recall my son describing how tough, at about 18 (he is now 32 and has sorted these isues, well as much as anyone sorts them), 'there is too much choice Dad...'. The Western liberal democratic processes focused on the right of each person to live as they choose, has evolved a social structure where people can do exactly that. Choice gone mad...

In the last 50 years, people have indeed lived more adn more as they choose, tried many new ways of life-style, sexual satisfaction, and every form of sport, and recreation and spiritual endeavour one can imagine, and the imagination of people is not exhausted yet. Everyone today, is of the view their spirit and orientation has a right to be seen and heard and is not to be denied nor dismissed merely because it is different from the core social norm. For me, that is exactly as it should be. So I know who I am, and what I stand for.

The central issues we face are three fold. 

1. We need clearly 'see' the distinction between social structure and culture. Unless we 'see' clearly the difference between laws and regulation that enables the breadth of plural diversity then we risk trending back to where we have been, and indivual spiritual expression will be reduced. I resist that, since I think each person is born with a inalieable right to pursue their spiritual and life fulfilment in the manner of their choice, to select their cultural choice from the many,  provided they do not restrict or inhibit others pursuing their inalieable right.
2. The second, and huge issue is ethics. Our core emotional responses must be to celebrate the difference between us and others, and not condemn. It is very hard not to think that our way of living is the best way, and harder still not to press others to our mould. I suspect every religion has suffered from this very serious failing, certainly Christianity has been just dreadful, priding itself in 'conversions'.  The breadth of diversity of life style and 'culture' within western liberal and plural democracies has developed very rapidly, and to a breadth unimagined one hundred years ago.  But, it was predictable, looking back, the core of the social structure was there, the social ethic of individual freedom was there. We are now merely struggling to cope with the reality fostered by the core chocies of our society.
3. We need understand where our freedom comes from, from our social structure. We need be ready to defend our social structure against all attacks, we must never compromise, as we tend to do, based on naive notions of being liberal. The defense of our core social structure is being liberal, and enabling future generations to build on our learning and advance human spiritual and ethical development further than we can, due our inherent limitations of timing.  

There is now the issue of native and immigrant rights.To give living rights to those different, perhaps Maoris in New Zealand, for example, requires a liberal plural social structure, for to have otherwise is to enforce native way of life on people who are not native. For native cultures to floursih, then there must be no descrimitory legislation, or regulation, laws must fall equally on all, so that the native culture is enabled of flourish along with any others.

These legal and ethical pricniples have not been well handled to point that only a few generations ago many native cultures were actively being extinguished, and due such poor ethical and legislative process, natives may have been disadvantaged, and for that financial compensation is due. But compensation processes must not be confused with core social structural issues, since with compensation we seek to appease the past; while retaining a clear and plural social structure so we enable the future.

Similar comments as regards immigrants, they come into a plural, liberal social structure that we must protect. They may live as they choose within that, enabled by the very plurality they at times seek to deny. They make their choice, live and let live, or leave.

The problem is that these people, both natives and immigrants, frequently do not have the depth of  cultural and spiritual experience with pluralism. And as illustrated by my son, for those maturing today, it can be hard. Natives and immigrants frequently come to a breadth of pluralism in a few generations, whereas I come to it through my my ancestors reaching back a hundred generations. Natives and immigrants also often come with deep grievances that cloud judgement of the way forward. If we be liberal, and act such, then it is to be patient, and firmly resistant to naive pressures and requests. It is from insight into the depth of three thousand years of social evolution that the west knows the way forward to find the true fulfilement of humanity.

Education leading to understanding on the strucutre of who we are, and the significance of the western liberal, plural, democratic social structure, the very structure that will protect all cultures. Education however, requires we get the concept right first. Social structure defines all of us, we are all western. liberal, plural and democratic. Culture defines a particluar persons choice giving flavour and style to all of us, within the broader definition of who we are.

Understanding culture

Multiculturalism, what is it, how do we understand it? What is culture?

Confusion around the idea of culture has caused us at times to fail in defending the very processes that built our way of life.

A liberal, western democracy, founded on individual freedom, has at core the following types of social processes,

1. Transparent democratic processes, one person one vote, for removing bad leaders without violence.
2. Transparent application of the law, judicial and police processes.
3. Commitment to nurture and allow every person to express their own spirit within the law. This commitment to personal freedom supported by a live and let live ethic.
4. Transparency in political decision making, with the individual's right to protest (but, again, within the law).
5. Separation of powers, so religion, economy, police, judiciary, legislation, and education all kept separate with rules and regulation surrounding conflicts of interest and privileged use of information (insider trading, and privacy act, for example).

There are likely other principles, but these fairly reflect the core of what makes a Western liberal democracy. I call these our 'social structure'; largely codified in law and regulation. We change any of this at our peril, for any such change will erode our freedoms.

What then, is culture? Within our liberal democratic framework we live as we choose, constrained only by the law, which is intended to be non-directive, broad as possible not constraining us, merely providing a framework within which we can get on with lives we choose. I call the way some people, some group; choose to live as their culture.

Culture is then the manner in which various groups choose to express their spirit within the overall social structure of our western liberal democracy.

So Caucasians do as they do Protestants and Catholics as they choose and greenies as they choose, etc.

Any people joining our social structure are not given the right to demand it be changed to accommodate them. The social structure is the core of our existence, and we must never lose sight of that.

People joining our social structure are welcome and encouraged within our social structure to build and rejoice in their culture, recognizing that in so doing they need rejoice in others living their cultures, side by side. This then is ‘multi-cultural’, better known as modern plural society. As expressed by Julia Gillard, PM of Australia, if they join us it is over to them to fit in, or exercise the wonderful right we all have, that is to leave.

What then, in New Zealand, is Maori?

Maori is one particular culture group no more important than any other, and at about 15% of the population, not even a big or important cultural grouping.

Today, in New Zealand, Maori, like Muslims around the world, need realise they just are not able to have their own way, and they need seriously grow up and get used to the fact of people living beside them who are different.

Rather than just celebrating within their preferred group, rejoicing in their view of their superior spirituality, all peoples need come to rejoice in the differences that abound, and wonderful array of spiritual and living choice open in the world, and which the very structure of our society encourages and nurtures.

We all need see the blaze of glory in the vast patchwork quilt that is modern society.

Bringing heart to our legislation

Imagine we committed to the idea we are a liberal, democratic society, committed to an egalitarian ethic, where people, all people stood equal, regardless of job, wealth, or power. Imagine we insisted this principle applied in assessing legislation. How might it work?

Consider the foreshore and seabed debate. How would the egalitarian principle reshape this legislation? First, it becomes the ‘natural water act’ applying to all lakes, rivers, streams and seabed and foreshore.

1. All riparian/ownership rights immediately revoked.
2. All native customary rights immediately revoked.
3. Persons controlling land that blocks access required to provide four feet of walkway, fencing and maintenance by councils.
4. All waterways, all beds of all natural water, and for a nominated distance around all natural water, held in trust by parliament. Only unanimous vote can change this legislation.
5. All lake, rivers and streams to have public access, land to be provided, without compensation, councils to enable the access way.
6. Public accesses for beaches, say every 500 meters, for inland water, say every 2 kilometers.

The egalitarian principle could ensure that no amount of wealth, no creed, race, or any supposed prior claim will erode fundamental rights of us all, and access to recreational features of our wonderful country is one of those rights.

Giving democracy a soul

New Zealand is a western liberal democracy, committed to individual freedom. From our pioneering roots also comes an egalitarian ethic where no-one is better, we stand eye-to-eye, an ethic eroded today, and in need of resurrection.

Why not define ourselves as a western liberal democracy, where all stand equal before the law, and where we strive to ensure the social ethic reflects our commitment to our liberal egalitarian democratic principle.

We could then use our egalitarian democratic principle to assess the quality of legislation, forcing our politicians to respect the very fabric of our society that enables them to exist as they do.

As Egypt crumbles, China clamps down on freedom of information, and politicians in other authoritarian states watch nervously, it is a good time to cement our commitment to the principles and processes protecting our freedoms, and enabling us to remove poor leaders without violence or bloodshed.

The principle is this egalitarian democratic principle, which if embraced by us can ground our society. Politicians will not embrace it, nor will those with power and wealth likely eroded by the principle.

We need demand it politicians’ will follow. If we choose, we can bring them to heel.

Isn’t democracy grand?