Democracy, Stadium Style, by Julia Ingalls
Stadiums usually offer seating in a 360 degree configuration, allowing a spectator to sit anywhere and watch the proceedings on the center field. For this reason, stadiums offer insight into human perception, and the difficulty of governing our collective affairs. Arguably there are better seats, such as those situated right on the field, or those in the spacious comfort of a private box. However, from any seat, a spectator can still see what’s going on, and his or her viewpoint is as valid as the viewpoint of the air-conditioned execs in the private box. But what do each of them perceive? And how do we arbitrate this fundamental difference in perception so that we can agree on what reality is?
Imagine, for example, that the Iraq war is taking place in a stadium. The Americans are seated on one side; the Iraqis, on the other. And the presidents of various nations are prowling the mini-bar in their private box, hoping to discover a bottle of Perrier behind the hastily wrapped cheeses.
The Iraq war is happening on the field, but everyone’s perception of it is different. The Americans, for example, happen to be seated behind one of the giant lighting poles, so they have to keep leaning around the ungainly base to follow the action. The Iraqis, meanwhile, have to contend with the marching band, who keep standing up to play “On, Wisconsin” whenever a tank safely makes it across the field. The presidents of various nations, meanwhile, are embroiled in a heated discussion about who did such a piss-poor job of wrapping the cheeses, that they can only glance at the proceedings between scathing accusatory remarks. Only the aerial blimp has a completely unobstructed view of the situation, but even the blimp’s perception is marred by a lack of depth.
Which of these viewpoints is best? Does the viewpoint held by the greatest number of people make it more accurate, or does the viewpoint with the fewest number of restrictions, such as the blimp’s, make it the most trustworthy?
Democracy, in the abstract, aims to sample from all of these viewpoints in order to come up with the best possible solution to any given problem. Those lucky folks who have managed to sneak away from the stadium of life, and can spend their time in a metaphorical amphitheater where everybody is facing the same way, have little patience for this kind of talk. To them, there is no other side; there is only what is directly in front of them. Unfortunately, we must all contend with the fact that we are in this stadium together, and the time on the game clock is running out.
Forth Writer
Marco Mannone
variation and scribbles
on a theme by a very cool Ms. Ingalls
or
Forth Up and 5 billion to go
For me, Democracy, abstracted or no, might be the worst of all possible means to arrive at the “best” solution to anything.
In my experience, the crowd almost always gets it wrong.
The notion that if an idea appeals to 6 of 10 or 6 million of 10 million, it is a good and valuable idea and should be implemented, is preposterous.
Most timeworthy paths, projects and plans seem to have arisen from those least concerned with the majority viewpoint.
Ms. Ingall’s asks the reader to determine which position in the universe affords the best proof of reality.
For me this is refreshing, in that for years, I have mistakenly asked which position in reality affords the worst proof of the universe !
I would submit: all bioforms exist in a pure and binary reality.
The sum and total of all our quests, questions, steps, missteps, philosophies, truths and lies, is laid between two and only two possiblities: the next breath and lack thereof.
Ms. Ingalls asks: “Does the viewpoint held by the greatest number of people make it more accurate, or does the viewpoint with the fewest number of restrictions, such as the blimp’s, make it the most trustworthy? Which of these viewpoints is best?”
I am fairly certain the participants on the field ARE the reality; in that they test the limits of the binary model with each breath, and/or not…as it were.
The warrior on the bloody field does not even hear or see the crowd;
They do not exist, they cannot exist.
For the warriors on the bloody pitch, the crowd is a distraction.
For the crowds screaming down from the popcorn seats, the warriors are a diversion, an entertainment of sorts.
The only screams the warrior hears are testaments to his own survival.
In truth, ALL reality makes it to the next breath… or it don’t.
If 5000 soldiers die in the battle, the world ended 5000 times.
The crowd really has no idea what they are talking about,
since they themselves died 5000 lifetimes ago.
Democracy is the illusion of the shouted word as the last word,
when all too often, as is the case for the bloody combatants on the field, no words are neccessary.
I suspect the telos of the whole deal is to sell as much buttered pocorn as you can before halftime and hope the beer sales pay for those still breating down there on the field.
Leave your response!