Per Norback: Demoex - think global, act local
Previous page | Next page | Page: 3 of 7 |
Jump to page:
Page 3
If we put it Nietzsches way, a major part of humanity have strong herd instincts. A herd needs a shepherd. In our hierachical way of thinking there can only be one at the top level. But God is dead according to Nietzsche. His receipt is to put "man" instead of God, to become an "overman". It seems appealing at the individual level, but it is a strategy that does not solve the problem of Prisoner´s dilemma. The world doesn´t need a lot of overmen fighting each other. We must sacrifice our will to become a Messias, our longing for a glory, because we can´t solve the collectively self-defeating problems as individuals. Prisoner´s dilemma calls for another solution, without any heroe. It shows that rational egoism and individualism leads into a dead end. The Prisoner´s dilemma is bad news for neoliberals and supporters of the free market. It urges for collective decisions, for ideas and concepts prior to the individual level.
"Many consider Nature,
which is a mindless beast,
to be God.
To understand this,
Heaven must be understood.
A person with hunger pangs,
leaving a cave to search for food,
facing the danger of being eaten
by own kind or other earthlings,
would consider the security and abundance
of our lives, Heaven.
If our streets were paved with gold,
Heaven would have platinum.
God is a figment
of Mankind's imagination.
God is the People.
The People are God.
The overall will of the People
is the will of God.
Democracy answers directly to
this will
and is, the Government of God"
This poem, Holy Democracy, was sent to me by William D. Carper soon after Demoex was elected in the local parliament of Vallentuna, Sweden. The history of this work of conceptual art, that has become my Utopia, started two years earlier. It all begun one day at work, Vallentuna upper secondary school, October 3rd 2000. Our municipality organized a theme day on "IT and democracy" and the question why so few young persons are politically active emerged.
Some students answered that they did not approve to choosing between ideologies. They expressed that their point of views were impossible to place on a political right-left scale. Other students were pessimistic about the aspects of political influence. "Decisions are made from above" they argued. Others answered they had no time to involve in politics. Others again thought of politics boring, tiering and insignificant.
After an interesting internet debate an oral discussion with local politicians followed. The politicians started to argue against each other and against the bravest students in order to win some new voters in the next election. Afterwards I had a spontaneous evaluating discussion with a handfull of my philosophy students. They appriciated the speed and the structure offered by the electronic debate-system but they felt run over in the traditional oral debate.
Previous page | Next page
