The first post in the “Time” Category is HERE

The first post in the “Nationality” Category is HERE

The first post in the “Democracy” Category is HERE

The first post in the “Language” Category is HERE

An Education Card is issued to the parents on a child’s fourth birthday. It has a photo ID and a Personal Identification Number. It is valid for four years. A new card is issued every fourth birthday after that, usually coinciding with each Educational Stage. The reverse holds encoded data such as years completed and levels reached. The final card, issued at age 20, lasts a lifetime for a College Diploma or University Degree lasting up to four years.

When an Education Card is presented at a Learning Centre, it activates a National Register which checks its validity and the information it contains. It can then be used to register the student on the Centre’s Roll. It allows the transfer of one year’s student education allowance directly to the Learning Centre’s bank account from the Central Education Bank. If a student leaves during the year, the Centre will return a portion by monthly amounts to the Central bank. The Card is valid at all registered Learning Centres in the Country. Information is transferred from one card to a replacement card.

Instruction should be more along the lines of tutoring, where students are alloted time as individuals or small groups. Freedom to choose a learning environment for one’s child means a change from State monopoly to State regulation. All schools would become independent Learning Centres, although several small centres could group together if that were beneficial. The Learning Centres would have to rely on quality of product, i.e., the well-educated student, to keep enrolment levels up. In this matter they are like businesses. Learning Centres would receive government funds depending on number of children and area. Remote areas would get a higher percentage of tax dollars per student.

Learning Centres would reflect the individuality of a neighbourhood or community, and especially, the wishes of parents. The former School Boards would change from a political system to Education Boards made up of elected parents and teachers. These bodies would decide on education policy and the disbursement of monies.

Private Learning Centres would still continue, and be funded equally with the State centres. They could charge fees but would be bound by the same regulations, including teacher qualifications, as non-private Centres. Education would be funded nationally through Income Tax on all earners, including business.

A committee of the local government would have jurisdiction over Education Boards with a delegate appointed as a non-voting liaison at Board meetings. If a serious problem arose within a Board the matter would be dealt with through the local government Education Committee. All Board Meetings should be public and major decisions ratified by a community vote.

Democracy in education means greater parental control and less state interference. The State sets agreed standards and monitors the process. The State is the vehicle through which funds pass from the people to further the education of their children, but there is no State control except when established rules are broken and there is a need for an objective, authoritative decision.

Education is a unique freedom. The comparison between leading the horse to water and leading the child to the fount of learning is very close. Too many children today are like that horse. They won’t drink of the knowledge we offer for several reasons. They don’t see its value to themselves. The knowledge is unattractive and boringly presented. They have not been taught the basic skills well enough. Their parents, as role models, may have had little education and have a hostile attitude to a facet of life they have little understanding of.

An uneducated society is the greatest threat a Democracy can face, because it cuts to its very roots. If people have to make decisions about how they conduct their lives, education must be a vital part of those lives. If we lead properly, our children will drink thirstily.

1. Foundation This is the most important Stage in the Educational process. The young child is given an intense exposure to Reading, Writing, Counting, a Second Language, and Social Skills. There are no Grades. A child passes out of this stage when he or she is competent to a specific standard. Weaknesses must be recognized and attended to. (Age 4 -7)

2. Primary Children are taught how to learn, not just what to learn. This Stage builds on the Foundation Stage with English, Second Language, Math, Science, Recreational, Social and Cultural Skills. (Age 12 –11)

3. Secondary The emphasis is on how to find information and how to use it. The Primary skills are developed further. Particular skills are studied in depth. Children are introduced to a broad spectrum of adult occupations. (Age 12 – 15)

4. Specialization Primary skills are continued, geared towards individual interests. Hands-on experience in a variety of fields in the first year leads to narrower specialization in the second year. In the third and fourth years, one of three Programs, Academic, Academic/Technical, or Technical, is followed, with a Graduation Certificate at the end. (Age 16 -19)

5. College One career choice is taken up for the period required for training to qualify. This Stage can be taken at any age after Graduation. There is an entrance exam for every Course at this Stage. A College Diploma is awarded.

6. University This is a place for mature students who have been through Stage Four and passed an entrance exam. It is for the academic study of theory, and for research in chosen fields. A University Degree is awarded.

The next post will suggest how such a system of Democratic Education could be established.

It is the responsibility of a society to provide the means to educate its people. This is done through family, community, and government. Each of these parties has a responsibility to the others to ensure that education of the young takes place, as a priority.

Education is a privilege that has to be earned. John Heywood’s 16th Century proverb:
“A man may well bring a horse to water,
But he cannot make him drink without he will.”
is true about Education today. A person must want to learn before learning can take place. If Education were a privilege that could be withdrawn during periods of intransigence, it would be appreciated more. There would be fewer of the behavioural problems that assail our schools today. The efforts of our teachers would be more effective, with tremendous results.

The right to be educated to the limit of one’s ability would still be guaranteed. At some point in a child’s emotional life the ability to learn may be restricted by anti-social attitudes which affect not only the child himself but also those around him who want to learn. Our present system of compulsory education favours too readily the rights of the disturber and ignores the rights of the disturbed. Punishment is not the answer. That just makes the problem worse. Withdrawal to a closely monitored, interest-centred, activity-oriented ‘school’ would do less damage to a child with emotional problems than forcing a prescribed educational course on him. Whenever a young person again feels the need and desire to learn – and this is a natural trait of the human being – he is welcomed back into the educational world of society.

How far we have come from tha original Greek ‘schole’, meaning ‘leisure’! A Greek school was a place you went to in your free time. Unfortunately the English word has developed bad associations of force and control, the opposite of Democracy. In a new democratic Educational system, children would not be “schooled”, but encouraged to learn. They would do this in Learning ‘Centres’. The organization of the Centre would need to be different in order to fit in with a system made to suit students rather than an established social order.The idea of a person being at ‘school’ as if it were a training institution is wrong. A Learning Centre should be a place where people young and old, come to learn, and should reflect this concept.The organization should avoid the temptation to be a social unit in and of itself. People want to go into social groupings they want to be in. It is undemocratic to force people into a social unit over which they have little control – except through rebellious behaviour. Often this enforcement is so powerful that it leads to the formation of elite schools, creating the “old school tie” syndrome.

One of the main tenets of a Democracy is the responsibility of parents and state to educate their children with the expectation that children should be educated for an agreed period of time. Some people develop later in life and the process must allow for that. “To the limit of one’s ability” means that education is a lifelong process and it should continue into adulthood. This education must be made as rewarding, as interesting, and as relevant as possible.

That is the challenge of Education in a Democracy.

Jesus gave an answer when questioned about dealing with government. “Render unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s.” Theologians have discussed this statement for centuries, but perhaps Jesus is telling us that spiritual matters are different from worldly matters. In space fiction terms He is talking about “parallel worlds’, closely linked yet unconnected. All our religions, of whatever kind, are merely human attempts to bind these two worlds together. Unfortunately, in these attempts religions commonly use autocratic rather than democratic ways to keep people bound to their specific faiths.

If a person does have a spirit, or force, within, it is a function of the eternal spiritual world of God, and Jesus may be saying, “Give that spirit to God, it is his due, but the way you live is a temporal matter, so govern your life on earth according to the times you live in.” Jesus gave us many suggestions about how we should live in society. So did other “men of God” – Buddha, Mohammed, Baha’u'llah, for example. The Koran states that people of any society should live in harmony together – no matter what religion they profess. All suggested the right way to live and religions were founded to propagate their ideas.

In a Democracy the human person is the centre of the world. The rules to live by do not come from the ideas of a temporal religion, but from the Good dwelling within every one of us. Some may call this the creative spirit of God, others, the working of the developing human mind.

Democracy, the brain-child of Solon, suggests the right way to live in society, without the trappings of religion. I am not saying Solon’s democracy was ideal. His idea of who the “demos”, or the “people” were was not at all inclusive. His basic ideas were correct. Later modifications have improved the idea, making it universal in scope. Respect for others and the acceptance of responsibility for one’s actions are the human ways to live in a society. In a Democracy what we believe about God is very personal and nothing to do with the state. It must pass the Democratic Test – can it be practised without harm to others? If our beliefs are different from others we must accept theirs as merely different ways to the same end, the spread of Goodness in the temporal world. The effect of our human behaviour on our spiritual selves is between us and God. Our particular understanding of, or belief in, the spiritual world should not drive our life in this world. Religious zeal has been the cause of much strife and horror. It has brought out the best in human beings, but also the worst.

If we replant the seeds of Solon’s Democracy in our government we could reap the benefits of a country filled with people of different origins and faiths, working together to provide a good life, a safe life, a productive life, a happy life, for all its citizens.

Perhaps at this point we should examine the growing tendency to avoid words that are gender specific, or create unwieldy expressions to avoid using a ‘male ‘ word to refer to females. The attempt to change words that end in -man to read -person, or to add -woman, is pushing the language in the wrong direction. And, it is based on a false premise.

The Old English term for a man was “mann”. The word for a person was “man”. “Mann” was pronounced like Modern English “man”, but the O.E. pronunciation of the word “man” was less emphasized, more like the M.E. sound, “m’n”. Some dialects, e.g. Black English, use the unstressed form, “mon”.

Woman in O.E. would be pronounced “wom’n”. The stressed ‘wo’ part indicated a female. So ‘woman’ meant a female person. We could change the spelling of woman to wom’n, or even just womn. The plural could then be wimn, reflecting the O.E. vowel change system to indicate the plural form.This would give the words equal status with ‘man’ and ‘men’. (Note the vowel change has been retained in this example, as in ‘mouse’ and ‘mice’.) Thus, for example, Chairm’n, or Chairmn, means a male or female person in charge of a meeting. There is no need to use the cumbersome word “Chairperson” if you want to indicate a position that could be held by either a man or a woman.

The feeling that a woman is not considered equal to a man is supported by the use of the word “female”. However, although it also seems to be a derivative of “male”, this is only an accident of spelling and pronunciation. “Female” comes from the Latin “femella”, a woman, or girl. It could be more accurately spelt “femel”, or we could revive “femme” an old word used in Scottish law for woman. No doubt it was derived from the French “femme”. (French has no problem differentiating between the sexes.)

Thankfully, gender based endings, as in actor/actress, executor/executrix, murderer/murderess, are disappearing. They are artificial creations that reflect periods of change in the language. There should be a concerted effort to drop these expressions.

There should be a reward for the person (or m’n!) who can devise words to replace the singular forms of the pronouns in the expressions “he or she” and “him or her”. The plural forms are nicely expressed by they and them, without reference to gender. A possible solution would be to shorten the plural forms and use “ey” for he or she, and “em” for him or her.

Whatever grammarians think or say, language is essentially democratic in nature. It changes through the power of people as they use it. Why it changes is a mystery. We can see changes after the fact, but little can be done to influence it. It is one of the most powerful tools the People have to control their destiny.

1. The Wedding. This ceremony returns to it’s original meaning of “Betrothal” or pledge to marry. It is a legal contract between two people that would last a year. During this period the couple get to know one another. It is agreed not to have a child at this stage. Property is separate so that if the year’s ‘honeymoon’ does not survive, the couple can separate without financial conflict. The next stage will be one of greater commitment, and so toward the end of the year the couple make an assessment of their relationship, possibly with a marriage counsellor.

2. Marriage. This is a notarized contract for five years. All property acquired, before and after this date is owned equally by husband and wife. Expectations, agreed to at at the marriage-counselling sessions, would be written into the contract. During this period, legal separation could take place on proof of breaking the contract. Joint material assets are shared equally immediately. Proceedings would start to asses punitive damages to an innocent partner. At the end of the 5-year contract period legal separation becomes final, unless renewed for another 5-year period. Normally children would be in joint custody unless otherwise ordered by a Court. Grandparent visitation rights would be laid down by Court Order.

3. Commitment. After six years of marriage and two opportunities to end the agreement, there is a final ceremony, in church, home, or registry office, where the family celebrates the life-long commitment of the couple. This is a verbal promise, made before family and friends, commemorated by a suitably -worded Marriage Certificate. The permanence of any marriage depends ultimately on the true desire of two people to live together. No document, however legally framed can keep a marriage together. The two individuals have made their own decision to be together. They have accepted responsibility for their actions. They have proved their respect for one another. They have created a Democratic Marriage.

One of the most complicated social systems we have is the way we identify ourselves. Our real or perceived status is reflected in our titles. Often these titles are now of little help in giving information about the person so described. They are often confusing as well as archaic.

A man, whether or not he is married, has the title of Mr. (contracted from `Mister`, or `Master`) added to his name. A woman, if married, is called Mrs. (contracted from `Mistress`). If she is unmarried, she is called Miss (also contracted from `Mistress`). Ms. (again contracted from `Mistress`) indicates that a woman is married but keeps her own name, or unmarried but does not want to reveal this fact, or married and does not want to reveal it.

The word Mistress originally meant a woman in authority. In a married woman`s case this would be in a man`s household, since she could not own property herself. This meaning has no relevance today. It is better to give no information than to give confusing information.

In a Democracy we are all equal in the eyes of the state. This should translate into equality in relationships. Robert Burns put it this way:
‘The rank is but the guinea stamp -
The man`s the gowd for a`that.’.

If, in a democracy, we are all the `gold`, this means that every man, woman, and child is equal as a person. Titles discriminate, often unfairly. The French Revolutionaries called one another `Citizen`. Russian Revolutionaries addressed one another as `Brother` or `Sister`. However, they were using the titles in the pre-revolutionary manner – as a means of discrimination. A better, and more democratic way, is to omit titles altogether.

A name is the only title we need. Many societies have used only one name, or a descriptive composite name. Our society calls for at least two names. It did not start out that way. we had only one until, for clarity’s sake, in a growing population, a second name, or surname, was added. It was descriptive, as in John (the) Miller, or, as in Iain Mac (son of) Donald, where a person is identified by a family connection.

A title was added to indicate class. Men of no rank were titled Master, or one of its various pronunciations, to indicate mastery of some skill which separated them from the lower, unskilled class. Later when ordinary people were addressed, particularly in correspondence, we were all blessed with the title (Mr., Mrs., Miss, or Ms.) This peculiarly English custom has spread throughout the world. The French ‘Monsieur’, from the Latin ‘meus’ (my) senior, is even less democratic than the English method of address.

As persons of equal status, we should just use our personal name for identification and address. It should not be too difficult to drop our titles. In some circles in England the second name is used between equals. In Canada, complete strangers are comfortable using first names, perhaps because of the huge variety of surnames. To avoid the use of ‘Sir’, ‘Madam’, ‘Miss’, etc, we need a word to address people whose names we do not know. Fortunately, English has a long history of borrowing and adopting foreign words. The Urdu/Arabic word, originally meaning ‘friend’ is ‘sahib’. We could use the ‘Sah’ part of the word to address people irrespective of age, sex, or status.

A woman should keep her own name after marriage. She is a person in her own right. Her marital status is no concern of others unless she, wishes to reveal it. This would make women and men equal in that respect.

The children of a marriage could take the second name of the father or the mother according to their sex. At eighteen they could choose their adult surname.

It is about time for marriage to be considered a legal contract between two adults, not between two individuals and the Church, or State, where the union is “sanctioned”, with grave penalties if broken without approval. The spectre of illegality for a child born “out of wedlock” has scarred the lives of many. Every child born is ‘legal’ – if that word has any meaning outside a law court.

1) The first group of consonants sound as they are spoken in English. (Note, not by their alphabetical names):-
Bb, Dd, Ff, Hh, Jj, Kk, Ll, Mm, Nn, Pp, Rr, Ss, Tt, Vv, Zz
Note that Qq is not used in pictophonics. It’s sound is formed by kw.

2) This group of consonants have limited sounds:-
c does not sound as in cell, and can. It is used for the sound of ch as in chip.
Gg does not have a soft sound, as in gel. It is always hard, as in get.
Ww has the sound of w in wet;
Yy has the sound of y in yet.

3) There are two paired consonants with special symbols:-
ħ is the letters th joined together as in thick.
ŋ is the letters ng joined together as in sing.

4) x could be used as shorthand for the sound cks in socks.

5) The following letters would have a diacritic mark, ( ̇ ) placed above the letter to indicate a voiced or fricative sound:-
ħ would have the sound of th as in then.
k̇ would have the sound of ch as in the Scottish loch.
ṡ would have the sound of sh as in ship.
ż would have the sound of zu as in azure.
ẇ would have the sound of wh as in whet. (Although some English speakers pronounce this word as “wet”)

An example of how the Pictophonic System works can be seen HERE

01 (eat)

02 (sit)

03(late)

04(let)

05(hat)

06(hot)

07(law)

08(hope)

09(foot)

10(spoon)

11(choose)

12(above)

13(up)

The vowel pictophones will be easier to manage when the font size is reduced to a normal typeface.

The Vietor Triangle

The Vietor Triangle shows how linguists can explain where and how vowel sounds are made in the mouth. The International Alphabet symbols and words illustrating the sounds of the symbols are placed in a diagram showing the position of the tongue and the shape of the mouth.

The Vietor Triangle is turned into a Pictophone, a shape that represents all vowel sounds.

It is a simple basic shape that is usable as a lower or upper case letter and can be adapted in several distinctive ways using Diacritical Marks.

These Marks change the basic pictophone shape with a dot at the point on the Vietor triangle indicating that sound. A pictophone with a central dot (as in the example above) indicates the sound known as ‘schwa’, the sound of any vowel in an unstressed position in a word. eg. above, better. It is the most common vowel sound in our spoken language.

Because the pronunciation of vowels changes over time, our system grew more complicated, and after the printing press was invented our written language was not able to change with our spoken language. This is why English is now a less than a perfect phonic language.

However, there is a way to put vowels to work as they were intended to function and be easily recognized by their appearance as the sound each represents.

The various Phonetic Alphabets used by linguists are a complicated and confusing mixture of traditional letters and symbols representing sounds. They do not provide a suitable alphabet for practical use. If we look at why pictographs were created we could try to create a modern way of writing that would allow us to combine Syllabic and Pictographic writing.

However, its rapid spread throughout the world has brought a problem that should be addressed. English has become the root language of Universal English, giving rise to American English, Indian English, and others. Every language develops its own dynamic, and quite soon in linguistic terms the various forms of English will be as different as the languages rooted in Latin are today.

The solution to the problem lies not in trying to keep English pure – its strength lies in its very impurity – but in making its use universally comprehensible in its spoken form. We should remember that language was completely oral, until the printing press and education made a written form the normal means of communication between people, for hundreds of years. The written language changes very slowly and change is not a major problem except for grammatical purists. However, if we can not understand the speech of a person the effect is immediate.

Consonants change pronunciation very slowly, if at all. The vowel, the very heart of the syllable, that carries its meaning, is as fluid as the untrammelled air it is formed by. It can vary between parent and child, and be unrecognizable by people living thirty kilometres apart.

We must find a method of making the vowel sounds easily identifiable in the written word so that a speaker reading the words knows exactly how to pronounce them. Listeners would then hear ‘written’ words, not spoken English which is the most difficult form of English to grasp when spoken by a person who does not have your own accent. An “accent” is mainly the different stress and sound put on vowels in a language,

Canada is a farm run by two founding peoples. It brought in people of similar background from other parts of the world. It adopted the native peoples, It brought in people to work on projects. With this unlikely mix Canada has started the creation of a recognizable national unit.

Sometimes the family has its differences. Perhaps the adopted children, remembering they had a home of their own at one time, feel they want to live in a separate house on the farm but still be part of the family. Some of the children of the original couple feel the servants and the adopted children are not really part of the true family unit, have funny habits and should be kept in their place. Perhaps a relative of the couple feels that because he was closely related to them, his ideas are always better than those who may not be so closely related.

Perhaps the original couple talk of divorce. Are their differences so strong? Can they talk about their problems amicably? Do they realize the effect a divorce would have on the rest of the family members? If separation takes place, will it be so bitter that they cannot speak to one another again?

What of other countries? The USA is probably a more complicated country than either Scotland or Canada. It has a past history of different origins, native inhabitants, wars of independence, language and colour problems. Is (Are?)the USA a real nation? Will it become one – eventually? If it takes the path of true democracy it could become one. However, are the problems too divisive? Its citizens must decide what is important for it as a nation. For instance, do they really believe it has a God-given right to control what happens between other nations around the world?

Is Japan a lucky or an unlucky nation? It is lucky in that it has had relatively few of the teething troubles of other nations. It was isolated from the rest of the world for centuries and went straight from having a God-Emperor to a Democracy. Its attempt to create an Empire was short-lived and unsuccessful. Its only conqueror was a benign and forgiving USA. This was probably because of the embarrassment and shame of dropping atom bombs on two vulnerable cities. Or is it really being unlucky? As a Scot and a Canadian, I believe wholeheartedly in the saying, “Strength comes through Adversity”, but I would add the words, “and Diversity”.

What of the Arab nations? Will the grip of religious fanaticism breed a hatred that will prevent co-operation among individuals, thus preventing nation-building from coming about for generations? All people of the earth need to look into their hearts to recognize the divisive forces they support and work together to dissolve them.

If individuals, families, nations have respect, which is a just regard and appreciation of the worth of their fellow human beings, there is hope for this World. The underlying quality of Real Democracy is respect for our fellow human beings, for without this respect Democracy is an empty prize.

Will Canada be allowed the time? Scotland ceased to be a separate political nation in 1707 on union with England as the United Kingdom, yet after 300 years it still recognizably a ‘Nation’. Would Canada survive amalgamation with the USA for 300 years and still produce ‘Canadians’ that are recognizably distinct from ‘Americans’? Would Canadians still resent being called Americans by the rest of the world, as Scots resent being called English? This is the acid test of nationality. Nationalism is a slow flame that burns deep within the soul of a nation and no matter what happens to the people, it burns steadily for ever. The spark of Canadian nationalism is there, but can we fan it into a real flame? We certainly could if Canada became a genuinely democratic nation. The strength of true democracy lies in the individual people, and it is these people, of whatever origin, that make a real Nation.

Nationalists tend to believe that independence is all that matters. But, independence from what? Granted that it is independence from a former controlling power. However, no nation can be independent of the World. We, as individuals, are dependent on our neighbours, although we put up fences, use drapes, lock our doors, and have privacy laws. In order to live in harmony we respect our neighbouring family’s individuality, its right to be itself, its freedom to be an independent, recognized unit in our World Society. A nation should be looked on as an independent, recognizably different unit living in harmony with other units.

Let’s look at other parallels. The land the Romans called Caledonia was sparsely populated when they decided to withdraw behind Hadrian’s Wall in the 5th Century. This was the border between Pax Romana, or Roman Civilization, and the ‘savage’ tribes they called the Picts. The fall of the Roman Empire brought invasions by the Germanic Angles, Saxons, and others, who drove the Romanized Britons out into Wales and South-West Scotland. The Angles settled along the East Coast as far North as the Firth of Forth.

The Picts retreated to the North. The Scots came over from Ireland and colonized the Western Islands. The Pictish tribes were absorbed by the Scots and did not develop as a distinct nation. By marriage and battle the Gaelic-speaking Scots absorbed the Welsh speaking Britons and English-speaking Angles as far South as the present border with England.

As if this multicultural mix were not enough, the French-speaking Normans (originally from Scandinavia) after the conquest of England in 1066, became the ruling class even in Scotland. The Norse appropriated the Western Islands and the Northern mainland.

The last invasion to mould the Scottish nation was the influx of English after the Union of Scotland and England in 1707 as the United Kingdom. The English Language ousted Gaelic from most of Scotland, although Scottish English is very different from the mother tongue even to this day.

How does a nation become a nation? I am most familiar with the history of the country of my birth, Scotland, and of Canada, where I have lived and been a citizen of, for over 30 years. For people who are not in my position of being an immigrant, the question of, ‘What am I?’ doesn’t arise. Am I still a Scot, or am I now a Canadian? I feel I can say I am both. Some governments say that this is not a possibility, I must be one or the other. Just a few years ago my wife, coming home from a visit to Scotland, was given a hard time by a Canadian border agent at the airport for still using her British passport, when she was a Canadian citizen. It so happens that our British passports had not expired and it was cheaper to use them rather than buy new Canadian ones. (Perhaps that explanation shows that we are still more Scots than Canadian!).

I think it is quaint that two of my grandchildren, both born in Canada, are proud to think of themselves as half-Scottish. Two others, also born in Canada, have a Scottish father, and an American mother. Are they quarter Scottish, the other fractions being quarter American and half Canadian? Another granddaughter has a Scottish father and a Canadian mother of Welsh parents. I can’t start to think how to make national fractions of her! The next question is, ‘Does it matter?’ And if it does, ‘Why?’ What a heterogeneous family we are! And my wife and I are responsible for this whole mess by deciding to emigrate to Canada!!

It’s about time we changed our ideas about nationality and consider that we are, as the Scots say, “all Jock Tamson’s bairns”. (That means children of the World.) Democracy begins with the individual. It’s nice to know who your parents were, but it’s not essential for you to be a good Citizen of the World. I would like to see the word ‘illegitimate’ (and its seven letter equivalent) gone from our legal vocabulary. Every child born into this world is legitimate in his or her own right.

Dawn is relative to longitudinal position. If the starting point for dawn were placed near the present International Date Line, say 175 Degrees West, Dawn Line One would pass over very few land surfaces, stretching from the North Pole, through the Bering Strait almost to the South pole before touching a land mass.

The Datum Point would be the conjunction of 175W and the Local Latitude of sunrise. The local Time Zones are then one hour different with each 15 degrees longitude westward from the first Dawn Line as dawn reaches these points. It would be reasonable to call this “Dawn Line One” and produce a map marking every fifteenth meridian as a Dawn Line. World Time would begin at sea level on Dawn Line One on the Equator, starting at 01.01 hrs and ending at 24.60 hrs, just before the sun rose again to begin a new date for the whole world.

It is questionable logic to use the concept of zero in describing Time. The idea of a day as a unit of life to be lived through means that, like the first month, or day, of the year, we should call the first hour of the day, the first minute of an hour, the first second of an hour, “One”, and not by the mathematical symbol, “zero” devised to facilitate calculation. Its use in the 24-hour clock confuses us with its 00.00 hrs called “Zero Hundred Hours”, which is the same as 24.00 hrs, or “24 Hundred Hours”. It seems that the 24th hour of the day does not exist (Although at midnight, who’s counting, anyway!). Because of zero, 3 o’clock in the morning actually means the beginning of the 4th hour of the day (This should read “date”, because we can hardly call it “day” except perhaps at the Polar Circles in summer). “10 past 3″ in Dawn time would mean 10 minutes into the third hour of the actual day, a much more accurate definition of the real time.

This figure, The Helix Clock, shows how the new Dawn Time works. The inner 1 at the beginning of the yellow band marks the moment when the sun rises over the horizon. (The outer 1 is sunrise the following day.) That would be about 6 o’clock in the morning in my part of the world. The first 7, between the yellow and orange bands, corresponds to 12 noon, and the second 7, between the red and purple bands, to 12 midnight. The MID’s are true middles, the 4th hours in the Morning, Afternoon, Evening, and Night. The Helix, if pulled out into a spiral, would show the flowing nature of Time and the basic symmetry of the Day which has been lost in our present system.

Dawn Time, Local Time, would be based on World Time. This would be a 24-hour system to be used for all Official, Internet, International, or, in many cases, Intra-national affairs.

Dawn is relative to longitudinal position. If the starting point for dawn were placed near the present International Date Line, say 175 Degrees West, Dawn Line One would pass over very few land surfaces, stretching from the North Pole, through the Bering Strait almost to the South pole before touching a land mass.

The Datum Point would be the conjunction of 175W and the Local Latitude of sunrise. The local Time Zones are then one hour different with each 15 degrees longitude westward from the first Dawn Line as dawn reaches these points. It would be reasonable to call this ‘Dawn Line One’ and produce a map marking every fifteenth meridian as a Dawn Line.

World Time would begin at sea level on Dawn Line One on the Equator, starting at 01.01 hrs and ending at 24.60 hrs, just before the sun rose again to begin a new day for the whole world.

Gradually we organized our daily life to fit a daily schedule, by dividing the day into hours, and smaller units. The sound of a ticking clock gripped our lives as we became aware of the fleeting seconds of our lives. Governments took control away from the natural forces of daylight, climate, and seasons, making us conform to less natural time patterns.

Different time systems were developed. The Church divided our day into canonical hours from Matin to Complin with the ringing of bells. The Navy ordered ship’s watches to change by numbered strokes of a bell. The 24-hour clock was introduced to coordinate our lives more efficiently. However it did not gain much acceptance by ordinary people, who continue to “subtract 2″ from the 3 of 1300 hours to get the ‘real time’ of one o’clock.

Greenwich Mean Time was an ingenious way of co-ordinating railway timetables in Britain, and was taken up as the means of uniting the world in a single time frame. It is useful to the military, airlines, and international phone services, but has little relevance to our daily lives. We are always adding and subtracting, never really sure of which arithmetical operation to use. Talking to somebody by phone on the other side of the world and realizing they could be speaking from yesterday, or tomorrow, is very confusing.

The 21st Century will see a greater need for a world time system for events and activities that occur in places outside our local time zone. This is why we need to develop a Local Time and a Dawn, or World Time. Local Time is agreed upon by the people living in an area who want to live together in the day as it affects their lives. Local time would start at dawn. The actual time chosen could be any point from sunrise on the shortest day of the year to sunrise on the longest day of the year. This would become one o’clock in the morning, or, as The Ancients, and some peoples even today still call it, ‘The First Hour’.