The material reality, according to panentheism, is not separate from God. If natural could someday include the conscious, then perhaps we may not require other words. I think that distinguishing omnipresence as a general claim about the infinite extent of God's power from an actual presence of consciousness in every living and non-living element of reality could be useful. Panpsychists say that consciousness exists everywhere (even in the smallest particle), and that is essentially my view.

By "rigid", I was referring to insisting that only a certain text or interpretation should be accepted while other perspectives and experiences are not worthwhile. And like I earlier wrote, I do think that Brahman does undergo changes due to the inseparable nature of the physical world and consciousness. I would also like to repeat the fact that existence is eternal for Hindus, so the question of being intentionally created for a purpose is not that significant. Nevertheless, I would say that being created would not reduce our available options and our capacity to act in a way that benefits us.

Sounds to me that your thinking is naturally gravitating towards panpsychism, as your panentheistic contemplations seem to lie uncomfortably in you. You do not seem convinced to me that the source of this universe is a fully formed eternal conscious entity that exists outside of spacetime(supernatural) but nonetheless, inhabits every 4D (one dimension being represented, as a duration) coordinate, in spacetime.

I am not entirely convinced of anything (including natalism), but I would certainly agree that I support panpsychism. I don't see it in conflict with all forms of panentheism. The cosmopsychism of Hindu panentheism can avoid the combination problem while providing an underlying unity. It also brings what people call "God" closer to man (too close for many monotheists). Since consciousness is already a part of the natural world, I believe that it would not be impossible that the definition could be extended beyond the strictly physical aspect to incorporate a greater consciousness.

:grin: Careful how far you stretch those terms my friend. I think that elasticity is gonna fail ya!

If only there was some elasticity already present, sir. Between people for whom the mere suggestion of the pervasiveness of consciousness is blasphemous and eliminativists who deny first-person consciousness exists at all, I am merely attempting to introduce some flexibility. Failure or success here are both too esoteric for me.

It's always very interesting and very pleasant to exchange views with you. :up:
I am just watching the live launch of the Euclid space telescope in the background on my TV.
It will hopefully move our species forward a great deal in its search for the nature of dark matter!
Another fantastic, totally human achievement!

:pray:

India is launching a mission to the Moon this month. It's doubtlessly an invigorating time to be alive and behold the astonishing human achievements. They are "totally" ours, yet the legacy of creation has the potential to take us back to source that is reminiscent of what we call consciousness. The direction, however, must remain forward.

Yeah, plenty going on in the next few years regarding the moon.

From moon missions:
India plans to launch the Chandrayaan 3 mission to the Moon in June 2023, taking a landing module and robotic rover to explore the surface. India first reached the moon in 2008 with Chandrayaan 1.

Russia plans to launch its Luna 25 mission in July 2023, putting a probe on the Moon to gather samples from its southern polar region.

SpaceX plans to take Japanese billionaire Yusaku Maezawa and eight other passengers on the dearMoon voyage around the Moon in late 2023. This would be the first mission for its Starship vehicle, which is capable of carrying 100 people.

Nasa, the United States space agency, plans to launch its next Moon mission in 2024. Called Artemis II, it will take astronauts to orbit the Moon.

The US Agency is due to launch the Artemis III mission in 2025 or 2026, landing the first woman and the first person of colour on the Moon.

It will be the first time that people have walked on the Moon since the last of Nasa's Apollo missions in 1972. Nasa has said it will use the Space X Starship for the mission.

China has announced plans with Russia to set up a joint base on the Moon by 2035, but no timeline has been drawn up for the project.

Much better to co-operate, than to cyclically compete, via preparing for war, engaging in war and recovering from war and then repeating the cycle.
Time to go drink beers! Thanks for the exchange!

I hope that you will relish the drinks while stealing some glances at the Moon (YouTube could act an a good option in overcast conditions).

I should also mention that Pandit Nehru was probably a pantheist who perceived both positive and negative elements in religion. The following quotations from 'The Discovery of India' bespeak this:

"What the mysterious is I do not know. I do not call it God because God has come to mean much that I do not believe in. I find myself incapable of thinking of a deity or of any unknown supreme power in anthropomorphic terms, and the fact that many people think so is continually a source of surprise to me. Any idea of a personal God seems very odd to me. Intellectually, I can appreciate to some extent the conception of monism, and I have been attracted towards the Advaita (non-dualist) philosophy of the Vedanta, though I do not presume to understand it in all its depth and intricacy, and I realise that merely an intellectual appreciation of such matters does not carry one far. At the same time the Vedanta, as well as other similar approaches, rather frighten me with their vague, formless incursions into infinity. The diversity and fullness of nature stir me and produce a harmony of the spirit, and I can imagine myself feeling at home in the old Indian or Greek pagan and pantheistic atmosphere, but minus the conception of God or Gods that was attached to it." — Existential Hope

I read your words very slowly before selecting the Pandit Nehru quote to comment on. I think I need to read your thoughts again and ponder them because it is not possible to understand a different point of view with casual reading. I think I see an inseparable relationship between working with a collective consciousness and being tolerant of differences. This is delicious. I can not automatically hold those concepts and make them useful. I can only know there are different thoughts that influence our experience of life differently.

For the notion of religion being compatible with democracy, I can find words to express my thoughts on that. I love the line "I do not call it God because God has come to mean much that I do not believe in."

I am sure there was resistance to people having a personal God. It came with Judaism and speaking the name of God was forbidden along with making images of God. Christians deifying Jesus and turning him into a personal God is shocking! It is interesting Hindus have so many religious icons and so do Catholics but Muslims are sticklers about not making images of God. That is a curious cultural difference since images are a way of conveying concepts. The Greeks created Athena's temple with statues and pictures that conveyed the new democratic relationship of the gods. That is they used images to tell a story and Islam does not have pictures for knowing God.

I really do not know enough about these differences but when we come to collective thinking and accepting differences, I think the understanding of God is very important, and worshipping a God who is jealous, revengeful, punishing, and fearsome, is a long way from the collective consciousness. To pray "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done" is not exactly about being inclusive and tolerant.

In the US we are now struggling with accepting diversity. I suspect we are as far from the Hindu consciousness as people can get. Despite our idealistic claims of democracy, we have persecuted and killed people who are different. The history of Christianity is violent and bloody. It is democracy that gave us peace, not religion! But because the US stopped using education to transmit a culture, and left moral training to the Church, we are in a crisis that threatens the future of our democracy. And I sure would not want to be in a place like Afghanistan because of religious notions held to be true there.

For many years I was determined to write a book about democracy and education and I hit a roadblock when I had to address the Christian problem. It is so tied to our politics and so threatening at this time, we can not be passive about the relationship between religion and politics.

"I can imagine myself feeling at home in the old Indian or Greek pagan and pantheistic atmosphere, but minus the conception of God or Gods that was attached to it."[/quote]

If we see those gods as concepts we can appreciate their importance to democracy and civilization. But on an emotional level, I would love to have a time machine and travel to Egyptian and the building of the pyramids, and loving our pharaoh who is as a god on earth and to think of nothing but this loving relationship with the pharaoh and how I can serve him and the building of the pyramids. That relationship with the pharaoh is exactly like the relationship some Christians have with Jesus today. To experience that instead of all the responsibility that goes with living in a democracy, would be wonderful. It is not possible to have that relationship with Jesus or a pharaoh when we hold secular concepts of democracy and a sense of our civic duty that is so much more than periodically voting.

In the US we are now struggling with accepting diversity — Athena

My recent experiences have shown me that flaws lie everywhere, even in the places where one has traditionally seen acceptance:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2022/06/godse-cult-gandhi-assassin-india/661154/

https://www.siasat.com/boycott-banner-on-muslim-traders-in-karnataka-temple-fair-2502764/

I think that possibly spiritual experiences can easily be corrupted when people start to bring politics into everything and insist that their interpretation is the only correct one (and every other position is completely wrong or evil). Mahatma Gandhi probably admired the fundamental idea of sacrificing oneself for the truth while not agreeing with every aspect of Christianity (just as he appreciated the discipline and simplicity of Islam without condoning its violence). The following article provides a gripping summary of Mahatma Gandhi's views on Christianity:

https://www.mkgandhi.org/africaneedsgandhi/gandhis_message_to_christians.php

To experience that instead of all the responsibility that goes with living in a democracy, would be wonderful. It is not possible to have that relationship with Jesus or a pharaoh when we hold secular concepts of democracy and a sense of our civic duty that is so much more than periodically voting. — Athena

I can't hope to speak for everyone, but my opinion is that one can have a genuine relationship with their understanding of the divine without relinquishing secularism and democracy if it is not understood as a process of languid devotion to a concept, but as a significant piece of a larger puzzle that also involves helping the fellow sentient being. We don't have to believe that the borders of the "kingdom" are so small or that the "will" is necessarily narrow.

I don't understand this mindset! What notion of success are you allowing to hold judgment over your life? Surely not the amassment of money and material goods. — universeness

I wish I had completed at least one book and then did a lecture tour to promote the ideas about democracy and education before my mind got so weak the effort is futile. :chin: It is interesting indeed to think of what I said here and then think about your question. I know a point in my life when I wish I had made a different decision. But now I can think of that with hindsight. I didn't know then what I know now.

Sounds to me that you know what your reasoning was, for not playing the money trick game, to buy cheap and sell dear, and become rich by doing so. Never forget the main problem the rich (especially the nefarious rich) have. If you can buy a Rolls Royce in the same way as an average person can buy a loaf of bread or a drink of water, then there is no joy, no satisfaction, no achievement whatsoever, in buying a Rolls Royce. This is why the rich get involved in weird shit, as they need to get involved in more and more extreme stuff, to feel anything. — universeness

I totally agree with you and the more I ponder what you say, the more I think I have a pretty darn good life. I remember fearing what wealth would do to me and I would again choose the life I have over having too much money. I love to think about how I would change my life if I won the lottery, but I am not sure if I would really enjoy that. It would mean taking on a whole lot of responsibility I don't have now and I suspect that would not be fun. Wow, I am so glad you replied and stirred all these thoughts. I am feeling happier and happier with the life I have right now.

We do whatever we can as individuals to help create a better world.
We speak out and vote against unfettered free market capitalism. We support ideas such as Universal Basic Income. We advocate nurturing people over profits. We fight for the basic means of survival to be accepted as a human right or else we declare our society, still, uncivilised. We support the removal of money as the main means of exchange from global humanity. We totally reject all forms of religious authority, for ever and ever, regardless of how convinced that woo woo is real, any individual or group is.
I could go on, but I wonder when you will finally accept that you have been, and continue to be, a 'successful' human being. Why don't you take that very very deep, very slow, inhalation and exhalation of breath, over and over again, that confirms your 'at f****** last, acceptance of you as a successful human.' It was NEVER about becoming one of the rich and powerful. The vast majority of them are, and always have been, and always will be, unsuccessful human beings imo. — universeness

On all those things I do not agree. I think a degree of incivility is desirable for the same reason too much wealth can destroy our enjoyment of life. If all the basic needs were met without a person making an effort, how would that be different from having too much wealth? What would motivate people to make an effort? This would really be disastrous if it killed industry because there was no way to measure success and reward those who took responsibility. Like I said, if I won the lottery I don't think I would want the responsibility of using that money to create and manage a town. What are you willing to do for no reward? Many jobs have an intrinsic value and many do not but they must be done.

I am trying to expand my great-grandson's life by increasing what he knows and helping him find his own interest and talents. That was the role of teachers played before IQ testing to identify those students best suited for higher education for military and industrial purposes. Today's education is producing products for industry and this leads to a mechanical society. Children who do not automatically follow this technological education agenda become excluded and part of the thrown-away population. It is a huge challenge to help a child discover his/her talents and interest and excite them about learning about the world instead of turning the child off. What do you think is the best way to motivate personal growth?

the more I think I have a pretty darn good life. — Athena

Exist there, in that realisation. Take your strength from there.

I am feeling happier and happier with the life I have right now. — Athena

So, keep existing there.

If all the basic needs were met without a person making an effort, how would that be different from having too much wealth? — Athena

It's very different indeed, as being able to take your basic means of survival for granted, does not give you the power and influence over others, and over what does and does not happen, that having excessive wealth can and usually does.

What would motivate people to make an effort? — Athena

All the unanswered questions in the universe and the journey to discover who you are and what you want.

What are you willing to do for no reward? — Athena

Contribute to the well being of others.

Many jobs have an intrinsic value and many do not but they must be done. — Athena

Those jobs that don't offer humans meaning and purpose and do not offer them a way to pursue personal vocation, should be automated asap and the burden of doing those crap but necessary jobs, that cannot currently be automated, should be shared by all, until they can be automated.

I am trying to expand my great-grandson's life by increasing what he knows and helping him find his own interest and talents. That was the role of teachers played before IQ testing to identify those students best suited for higher education for military and industrial purposes. Today's education is producing products for industry and this leads to a mechanical society. Children who do not automatically follow this technological education agenda become excluded and part of the thrown-away population. It is a huge challenge to help a child discover his/her talents and interest and excite them about learning about the world instead of turning the child off. What do you think is the best way to motivate personal growth? — Athena

I touched on this on my most recent post on the masculinity thread.

It's very different indeed, as being able to take your basic means of survival for granted, does not give you the power and influence over others, and over what does and does not happen, that having excessive wealth can and usually does. — universeness

What fun would life be with no challenges? One of those challenges is social position. Social animals have social positioning. Some will have more power over others and some will have none. This includes all social animals not just humans and our economic system. Our desire to be accepted leads to good social behavior and those with the best social skills will be leaders. The majority will be followers because they do not want the responsibility of leadership. This consideration is crucial to our notions of culture and education.

I look around me and see people who do nothing but play computer games or watch TV and eat! They destroy their bodies and minds in their pursuit of happiness. I can not comprehend the possibility that humans will enjoy actualizing their potential if they get everything they need with no effort.

Having family and a job are important parts of our identity and structuring our lives. The homeless people with no social ties or responsibility and accountability to others, become as referral cats. They are not "civilized" and are likely to spend the rest of their lives alienated from their own society without serious intervention. I must say, I speak because I am not at peace with my thoughts. I am not sure of what I think, only of what I have seen. If we do not take great care, we have serious personal and social problems.

All the unanswered questions in the universe and the journey to discover who you are and what you want. — universeness

That is not natural for all people. Please come spend a day in my life. I am heartbroken by how my own family can totally miss any pleasure in learning. They are locked into helplessness and defend themselves by avoiding any challenge other than computer games. And all around me are people who do much other than watch TV. They like to socialize but all they about life is the own personal experience of it, so to me they are very boring! I would say most people avoid life as much as they can. They most certainly avoid thinking. No thinking = no doing.

What fun would life be with no challenges? — Athena

You are describing a non-existent state as far as I know. Everyone alive has challenges.
Being able to take the basic means of survival for granted will never remove 'challenge' from a individuals life.

One of those challenges is social position. Social animals have social positioning. Some will have more power over others and some will have none. This includes all social animals not just humans and our economic system. — Athena

This reads to me like Jordan Peterson talking about natural hierarchies.
The human race is not forced to accept the social consequences of following the path that natural hierarchies leads to. The kind of social positioning you are referring to, that ultimately leads to 'rule of the few' with some leader at the top supported by an elite, who control all the military assets, is a model we all know well and is why we are in the mess we are in.

Our desire to be accepted leads to good social behavior and those with the best social skills will be leaders. — Athena

This methodology has failed miserably. We need to keep pursuing a better one.
Especially when 'best social skills,' commonly means 'best at fooling some of the people all of the time.'

The majority will be followers because they do not want the responsibility of leadership. — Athena

The leaders/followers model is a failed model, we need something better.
Government of, for and by the people must become vocational and be rewarded by high esteem, role model status, positive historical legacy etc, rather that personal wealth, and power.

I look around me and see people who do nothing but play computer games or watch TV and eat! They destroy their bodies and minds in their pursuit of happiness. — Athena

That's a common interpretation that people have but I know many people who seem like that, but are actually also involved in trying to change things for the better, in many ways.
Old cultural stereotyping can cause some to hold an inaccurate image of others.
Completely Ineffectual, hermitical people, be they wealthy or poor, are often unfulfilled people.
If people are mostly unhappy then they need to communicate that and get involved in trying to change things for the better. There is nothing else that an individual can do. You either stew or you try to change your life and the lives of others for the better.

Having family and a job are important parts of our identity and structuring our lives. The homeless people with no social ties or responsibility and accountability to others, become as referral cats. They are not "civilized" and are likely to spend the rest of their lives alienated from their own society without serious intervention. — Athena

So we need to create a system that offers people good opportunities and has that 'intervention,' safety net you describe, no matter how long it takes.

I must say, I speak because I am not at peace with my thoughts. I am not sure of what I think, only of what I have seen. If we do not take great care, we have serious personal and social problems. — Athena

Few people do have such 'peace,' of thought. I certainly don't, but I remain absolutely astounded sometimes, when I hear about the simple altruism demonstrated by so many, everyday, often towards complete strangers. Human beings can behave so much better than any god, I have ever heard the fable of. I recently watching a story on youtube about a guy, who just drives to the front line of the war in Ukraine, just to have the chance to save someone and bring them to safety. Civilian or soldier.
He is just a civilian himself. He does not work for any organisation. Just a man with a van.

All the unanswered questions in the universe and the journey to discover who you are and what you want. — universeness

That is not natural for all people. — Athena

Yes it is, If they are given the chance to think about such things.
Most are too busy being scared that they can't access the basic means of survival.

Please come spend a day in my life. I am heartbroken by how my own family can totally miss any pleasure in learning. They are locked into helplessness and defend themselves by avoiding any challenge other than computer games. — Athena

I don't know the mindset of the members of your family that you are referring to, but I would bet they would not accept your interpretation of them. I know my own immediate family members do not always agree with me as to what my strengths, weaknesses and priorities in life are, in the same ways that I do. I am probably also wrong about some of my interpretations of their priorities in life.

all around me are people who do much other than watch TV. They like to socialize but all they about life is the own personal experience of it, so to me they are very boring! I would say most people avoid life as much as they can. They most certainly avoid thinking. No thinking = no doing. — Athena

I think we all feel that way about some people in our lives or on the periphery of it.
I know that when I hear a tory politician talk about their priorities in life, I just feel like we are not the same species.

I just watched the last episode of a documentary called Empire of the Word on tvo - Ontario's public television network. Chronically starved for funds but staunchly independent and dedicated to informing the public, fairly and without bias.

If we're serious culture, saving and improving it, what we need to do is stop fussing about the ancient past, the recent past, comparative politics, religion and the curriculum in schools controlled by governments and local school-boards who won't listen to any of us.

What we need to do is protect and support non-commercial public media.

What we need to do is protect and support non-commercial public media. — Vera Mont

I think that would be a good move, yes.
What do you think of the YouTube channels that are supported via public subscription/donation?
It's mostly organised via Patreon. I am not a fan of that franchise type system:

From Wiki:
Patreon, Inc., was co-founded in May 2013 by developer Sam Yam and musician Jack Conte, who was looking for a way to make a living from his YouTube videos. They developed a platform that allowed 'patrons' to pay a set amount of money every time an artist created a work of art. The company raised $2.1 million in August 2013 from a group of venture capitalists and angel investors. In June 2014, Patreon raised a further $15 million in a series A round led by Danny Rimer of Index Ventures. In January 2016, the company closed on a fresh round of $30 million in a series B round, led by Thrive Capital, which put the total raised for Patreon at $47.1 million.

They signed up more than 125,000 "patrons" in their first 18 months. In late 2014, the website announced that patrons were sending over $1,000,000 per month to the site's content creators.

Is the model behind PBS not a good one? I don't know enough about the drilled down details. I enjoy the PBS channel we get in Scotland, as one of the 'freeview' channels. In fact, I think it's the best channel on 'freeview.' I have read a little about PBS, such as:

PBS is funded by a combination of member station dues, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, pledge drives, and donations from both private foundations and individual citizens. All proposed funding for programming is subject to a set of standards to ensure the program is free of influence from the funding source. PBS has over 350 member television stations, many owned by educational institutions, non-profit groups both independent or affiliated with one particular local public school district or collegiate educational institution, or entities owned by or related to state government.

As of 2020, PBS has nearly 350 member stations around the United States.

I do think there is a great need for more communication systems that are non-profit and are owned and controlled by a local/national majority of people.

What do you think of the YouTube channels that are supported via public subscription/donation? — universeness

Fine, but it's not about public service, or information or education or impartial news reporting, and information about the facts, legalities and mechanism and diverse PoV regarding current events. Those - the political issues, the historical documentaries, the science and cultural programs - not influenced by the need to appeal to sponsors or sell advertising - that's what's important about public networks

PBS has been suffering from malnutrition for decades. So much so that they've had to take on sponsors - essentially, advertise those commercial enterprises - which makes it harder to remain independent.
On the whole, I have found their current affairs and history programs excellent and their news reporting reliable. Unfortunately, the entertainment programs are more popular as well as more expensive, so they have to solicit donations far too frequently.

I can't stream PBS here, but I subscribe to the Canadian public networks - three of them for the price of my You Tube or Prime subscription. (Truth be told, as entertainment goes, Prime is rip-off. We stay mainly for the free delivery of amazon purchases on which we relied heavily through the Covid sequestering. I get more out of You Tube.)

Do you have a model in mind that could work?
For example, let's say that a movement started in Scotland, which demanded that the Scottish government set up an internet communication channel called 'Scotland's people.' I wont go into the content that would be allowed on such a channel but it would have no advertising, other than advertising up and coming programs/content. Any non-profit grouping or individual, could place content on the channel, once it has been viewed and approved by a citizen body, which was made up of a single representative from the biggest 30/20/10 non-profit organisations in the country.
The money to set-up and run the channel, would come from national tax revenue/ the educational budget. The pressure to set-up such a channel, would come from the number of people who would be willing to declare, that they will only vote for those who agree to push for this channel to be set-up and maintained.

Just an idea that probably has many flaws I haven't realised yet, but whadyafink?
Do you have a better idea?

Just an idea that probably has many flaws I haven't realised yet, but whadyafink? — universeness

For internet access, that sounds reasonable. Is it controllable? I'm pretty sure the Russians or Murdochs or somebody could hack it - though I can't quite see why they would want to. Like cable tv, it could also have sections for each region or locality for various agencies to post community events, volunteering opportunities, municipal service schedules, health and weather warnings and for people to let their neighbours know there is a charity bazaar, or a plot at the allotment has become available - maybe even host a local discussion forum. And some activities for youth, school-aged children and little tykes. The educational and social consciousness raising opportunities are wide open.

For broadcasting, I like the PBS / TVO model : with an independent board of governors and department heads; staffed by well qualified technical people and on-camera talent; funded by an unconditional grant. They should, however, be fully funded, not subject to new budgetary constraints every time a conservative government comes along that wants to privatize the universe and they should not need to solicit viewer contributions to make up an ever-growing shortfall.

It's not that I mind chipping in the little I can in order to give someone who is worse off equal access. What I mind is the inordinate effort and time that goes into raising revenue that could so much more productively be devoted to content.

I realize that broadcasting is expensive. The acquisition of commercially made entertainment content is expensive. Investigative journalism is expensive. Infrastructure, equipment and energy are expensive. When a publicly owned entity has to operate in a capitalist economy it's swimming with sharks all the time. Guess who usually wins.

Saskatchewan used to have a good public television network, too, and that got eaten some years ago. We still have them in Quebec, Ontario, BC and APTN, a national network dedicated to the interests of our indigenous peoples, which is pretty important in itself, even more so, as it's available to us settlers, so that we may understand their concerns and learn what initiatives are being taken; the current events of First Nations communities. The English and Francophone networks also carry a fair amount of Native cultural content.

It seems to me that you confirm that there are valid models that could be used to counter, if not defeat the more pernicious affects of privately owned and privately controlled media.
I liked the uses you cited for community based media.

Is it controllable? I'm pretty sure the Russians or Murdochs or somebody could hack it — Vera Mont

I often think about the Linux community and their open source software system.
Often, when a new cyber attack happens, the Linux community is the best at identifying it, containing it, defeating it and preventing it from recurring. This is because so many in the community know so much about the detailed workings of Linux that almost every second user can act as a very effective defender of the system. Such an approach is, I think, a very good way to best defend against internal or external hackers.

What we need is ground swells of local and national movements of where real power actually exists.
The people united in common causes to make things better for all stakeholders and not just a nefarious few. I think significant, people controlled, independent media would be an important step.
The concept of PBS (public broadcast systems), under the full independent control of the people and not the authorities, would be a good step forwards.
Current examples exist but they are not yet significant or powerful enough.

It seems to me that you confirm that there are valid models that could be used to counter, if not defeat the more pernicious affects of privately owned and privately controlled media. — universeness

They have existed for some time. Democratic-minded nations have been mindful, at least since WWII, that access to unbiased and factual information is a prerequisite of citizen responsibility. All the European countries have them, in some form of arm's length relationship with the government, even Japan, since 1953.
They must go some way toward countering the influence of commercial media, of there wouldn't be such a massive push from the right to defund them (even though they account for a small fraction of the national budget,) shut them down (on the pretext that they represent an 'elitist' left wing pov) or better yet, sell them (cheap, like they did the utilities and credit unions) to private enterprise.

If they have to keep competing with commercial networks for popularity and forced into heavy reliance on donations, people will be too bored by their content to bother. That's a serious danger to democracy.
On the bright side, commercial broadcasting has become so aggressively commercial, the advertising is so ubiquitous, intrusive and irritating that a great many have already forsaken those outlets and more will. What happens next depends on what choices are available to that audience.
... and of course, how interested they are in preserving democracy.

PS - I just signed on to a free BBC account. It comes up from time to time when I'm doing research - so when they offered, I though, what the hay? Haven't explored it yet. I'm sort of expecting that access to be limited, which is all right, or there may be an option to pay for more, which I's also willing to consider, since the Ontario government has just given me an extra $14 a month (property tax and energy price relief for seniors) and I've earmarked part of that for TVO.

I like that the BBC will take part in some very honest and deep probes into government and the activities of the nefarious rich and powerful, which does help a little to keep them in check. It's just not enough however. The main problems I have with the BBC, is the unacceptable pay rewards they give to their top executives and presenters and how they have tried to protect themselves when their own internal scandals have been exposed, such as the 'Martin Bashir debacle' and their disgusting handling of the inside knowledge they had of scum like Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris and Gary Glitter.

I think the BBC license money could be used to create a far superior publicly owned, people based, broadcast channel(s).

Of course, I haven't kept track of their doings. TBH, I haven't really paid much attention to the workings of our own public networks. There does tend to be an inflation of monetary reward in all aspects of show business, including sport-for-mass-audience, and it's unfortunate that public networks get caught up in it -- I suppose in part due to competition for talent with private enterprise.
Nevertheless, it's one our last hope for an informed voting public.

I strongly support the need for (better than any currently existing,) non-commercial, non-profit, powerful and influential, free press style, media channel(s) of, for and by the people which is owned and funded by the people, via taxation or via a BBC license style system. I think we have broad common ground on that proposal.

at the risk of causing offense: amen

:up: Amen just translates to 'so be it,' theists have no ownership rights to such terms, that I recognise.

This reads to me like Jordan Peterson talking about natural hierarchies.
The human race is not forced to accept the social consequences of following the path that natural hierarchies leads to. The kind of social positioning you are referring to, that ultimately leads to 'rule of the few' with some leader at the top supported by an elite, who control all the military assets, is a model we all know well and is why we are in the mess we are in.

Our desire to be accepted leads to good social behavior and those with the best social skills will be leaders.
— Athena
This methodology has failed miserably. We need to keep pursuing a better one.
Especially when 'best social skills,' commonly means 'best at fooling some of the people all of the time.'

The majority will be followers because they do not want the responsibility of leadership.
— Athena
The leaders/followers model is a failed model, we need something better.
Government of, for and by the people must become vocational and be rewarded by high esteem, role model status, positive historical legacy etc, rather that personal wealth, and power. — universeness

Well damn, you wrote exactly what is most on my mind, our relationship to authority. My homeless guy had his 3rd stroke and was found unconscious on the ground by his car. I have been overwhelmed feeling I need to visit him and take care of all his stuff. He was moved from the hospital to rehab and then moved to a long-term care facility about an hour away.

I could not move his car because of a mechanical problem so it was towed. Before it was towed I piled all his stuff in my living room. My actions resulted in a delay in towing his car away and that lead to repeatedly putting parking tickets on his car. I am horrified that I could immediately inform the powers that be that he had a stroke and could not communicate or get out of bed and that did nothing to stop the mechanical process issuing fines and taking the car. I feel like I have been caught up in this meat grinder that can not be shut off.

I intend to see a judge. I am pretty scared because I took the towing sticker off the window, delaying the tow. I wanted to bring the sticker inside so I could read it and learn what is the right way of handling this situation, but it came off in pieces that I couldn't read. That was after phone calls and going to a parking authority to explain he had a stroke. There is a huge breakdown in communication! I can not believe how mechanical the process is and that it cares nothing about the human being. I want to look the judge in the eye and ask him if it was understood the owner of the car could not possibly move his car because of a stroke. I want to say how challenging it was to get the information needed for better decision-making.

Everyone thinks I am wrong to do anything and that I should act cowardly and do nothing but stay out of the problem. But I am thinking if we do not hold this authority in check, we lose our liberty and that means we have fought every war nothing, and any acts of war we commit from here are wrong because we no longer have the personal power and liberty we once had. The authority above us in held in check and people who see this love Trump, but they do not see Trump is our Hitler, using our anger and fear to turn us against our government and put all the power in his hands and his hands only, just as Hitler did.

I really want to hear from others. Is a government a good government if ignores a man can do nothing to protect what is his because he had a stroke? The government not only towed the car away but it put fine after fine on the car. Isn't that equal to kicking a man when he is down?

Amen just translates to 'so be it,' theists have no ownership rights to such terms, that I recognise. — universeness

I am highly in favor of what you said. People who think only they know God's truth and stand in God's favor, are very offensive. Thinking a book and their interpretation of it is equal to having God's authority is just wrong!

Of course, I haven't kept track of their doings. TBH, I haven't really paid much attention to the workings of our own public networks. There does tend to be an inflation of monetary reward in all aspects of show business, including sport-for-mass-audience, and it's unfortunate that public networks get caught up in it -- I suppose in part due to competition for talent with private enterprise.
Nevertheless, it's one our last hope for an informed voting public. — Vera Mont

Before we can have better reporting we must have a better-educated population, so that people don't follow people like Hitler and Trump. Education for technology, and replacing the Conceptual Method with the Behaviorist Method, leaves us vulnerable to Charismatic Leadership such as Hitler and Trump. It is lead to Hitler's popularity the same as it led to Trump's popularity.

In the US we do not have a good source of information because reporting is no longer about defending our country with the truth. We are now all about popularity and money. The values that support charismatic leaders. And we have a mass that will buy almost anything if everyone likes the product and they might miss the boat and not be able to buy the product next week. Wherever I see these sales tricks for hooking us emotionally, I stop reading or stop listening because it is not ethical to use tricks to increase sales and I don't do business with unethical people.

Publically owned TV seems to be doing better than privately owned stations but often they are too opinionated and one-sided and flat-out rude talking over the person they are interviewing.