Self rule : A response

This post responds to the installments so far of Suzanne Deakins’ “Ontological Foundations of Democracy”

In the spirit of dissention which you encouraged in your post on rebels, I’d like to ask you a few questions and challenge a few of your ideas.

I'm confused about what the purpose of this series is. Is it a study of the ontological foundations of democracy, as the title promises; a broad, impressionistic historical sketch of the evolution of the idea and application of democracy; or an appeal to change the governing structure of the Prosperos? Is it all three?

To put it another way: Is your essay expository? Or are you making an argument?

Additionally there are several statements that seem to me to run contradictory to what the Prosperos teaches. Consider your statement "To free a group of people, they must be given a common identity." Your sentence implies that some entity has the power to free a group of people, which suggests that this group is not currently free. But how can that be? My understanding is that the essence of Beingness, which is our true Self, is freedom; therefore, the basic state of each individual is free. Your sentence also implies that freedom lies in a common identity. My understanding is that liberation comes when each individual's unique, unpredictable good expresses itself; not when an individual adopts a group identity.

You also write, "In democracy, the common identity we call citizen, in The Prosperos we call it students.” My understanding based on the teachings of the Prosperos is that "citizen" and "student" are roles we may play in society, but they are not our true identity.

You further write, "To be a citizen or student, or (sic) common identity meant that you must agree to a social contract…Once you agree to this contract you can participate in voting and governance at level of equality. In the United States, our contract is the Constitution. All organizations in the modern world have these contracts - businesses, schools, and sites on the internet. Every time you click on an I agree on the Internet, you are making a social contract. In the Prosperos, this is the creed of Melchizedek, not the by-laws. High Watch has always been the voting body." I found this section particularly confusing. It's not immediately clear to me that social contracts like the U.S. Constitution are equivalent to a business contract, let alone to the Terms of Service on a website. You also seem to equate the roles of citizen and student, thereby suggesting that politics and education are equivalent, each requiring the same power negotiations. You transfer this specific conflation of politics and education onto the Prosperos by writing that "High Watch has always been the voting body."

This statement can be read as an introduction to a point you make in a later paragraph: "For the Prosperos to evolve it must allow the HW to vote on such things as the members of the Executive Council, Dean, and pathways that lead us to the future. To continue as an organization that treats its members as incapable of self-rule, and good intentions leaves it open to tyranny, and loss of participants who seek more ontological ways of being in a group."

Now obviously schools have governing bodies that deal with daily operations regarding the running of the school, as well as systems in place about how decisions on curriculum are made. But neither the purpose nor the focus of a school is governance or politics. A school concerns itself primarily on the fostering of understanding and guidance of enlightenment. Whether the High Watch votes on members of the Executive Council and Dean or not, nothing, nothing is stopping each individual student from applying the core techniques of the Prosperos (Translation and Releasing the Hidden Splendor) such that the student is able to walk a pathway to the future. Self-rule, as I understand it in the context of the Prosperos, is indeed Self rule, rather than self rule in a political sense. It is working on one’s Self, noticing and releasing worn-out patterns and limiting automaticisms; and this work, this development toward Self rule, can only be done by the individual student, working where the student is now. Any belief that suggests evolution and Self rule are dependent on a predetermined set of circumstances (i.e., Prosperos must allow the High Watch to vote on X), is not a belief grounded in the teachings of the Prosperos in my understanding.