We?

Governance With RCS: We the people. A more perfect union.

                We can agree that "we" is a relationship, can't we? When we agree to relate it may be good to speak of the level at which we wish to relate. At what level might it be good for us to relate? We could speak of the reason for our relationship. How might we go about relating ? Might it be important that we show our concern for our "we?"

                What's in it for you? What's your interest? How is a mutual or reciprocal relationship handled?

                A "we" must consist of people, persons, individuals, right? Have you seen
the start of a "we?" Was there a kind of joining? Doesn't a "we" require some kind of maintenance?

                What do you suspect, believe, or know about the "we" in the "We the people..." document?

                That "we" could refer to us. How do we go about keeping track of our common interests? How do we reciprocate? "We the people" are a social relationship, aren't they?

                Let's say that we are the people in the "We the people" we know about.
What is the nature of our relationship? What is reason for our relationship? What's in it for you?

                "We" implies a unity, a union. We can probably agree that better and worse unions can be detected. How might we form a more perfect union?

                You may have some notions of "we" stirring in your mind now.

                Communication is important. Talk, dialogue, discussion are important. Talk of "us" and "we"  may be so important as to be called vitally important.

                I say that communication of persons is vitally important for the initiation and maintenance of a "we".    

                To have a good nation we have to have a good "we". 

                We can learn.

                We can contemplate.



                                                                                        RCS