Re: [Epistemology] Democracy Workshop (Antonio et Al) -[was: Re: For Georges: supporting the Declaration ...]

[Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>]

At 19:33 +0200 27-09-2005, Georges Metanomski wrote, with subject

"Re: For Georges: supporting  the Declaration ...":

>========================================================
>Antonio, jumping-in:
>
>Really, George's writing
>

><http://members.fortunecity.com/georges/demo_archive/transition_to_democracy>

>was not so known to the list - at least to the list-member I am.
>
>Let me try to discuss it now, inserting my comments into its text.
>It reads:
>========================================================
>G:
>You should not talk in the name of lists. You may not have
>noticed, but the issue has been several times discussed,
>recently with Tanguessy, who strongly argued in favor of
>revolutions. But that's neither here nor there, so let's

>move to the tahles.

(ant)

You wrote:

QUOTE

********************

To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: Please, support the Declaration ...

Leo wrote:
>
> Dear Bernard,
> please, consider to support the Declaration on the European Constituent
> Process.
> http://64.62.195.58/wddf/download.php?id=11
>
> if you estimate it, please post your support in the WDDF
> http://64.62.195.58/wddf/viewtopic.php?t=54
> or let me to know it by email.
>
> Regards, Leo
===========================================================
I'd like also to support it, but how do I do it?
Georges

PS. My support does not mean that I find it pragmatic.
Indeed, I believe that ALL actions of WDDM and CICDD
are nice games without any practical, pragmatic impact.
I justify this stand in
http://members.fortunecity.com/georges/demo_archive/transition_to_democracy.html
which is known to our list, but which nobody so far

discussed.

*************************

ENDQUOTE

(ant)

Perhaps you were referring to another list but

wddm@world-wide-democracy.net , which you sent

your quote above to. Since I am a member of that list,

I felt obliged to share-in to the discussion up there.

(G.)

> I refused so far to discuss with you, not because of

> any personal dislike, but because I believe that our
> discussions, doubtless by my fault, are totally meaningless
> and void of any interest.

(ant)

No problem to me. I write to the list, and I do not feel

personally empowered to decide what is meaningful

and plenty of interest to them, and what is not.

Usually I leave such decisions to the list.

(G.)

>This time, however, you addressed not me, but the Democracy
>Workshop Forum (see Appendix) and I have no right to disregard
>your post, nor BTW to answer it in the name of the Forum. All
>I could do was to present your message to the Forum
>Coordinator, who, the charge being taken in turn, is
>currently a 19 years old boy named Beranger.
>
>That's his answer:
>First, we welcome Antonio's interest for Forum's work and ask

>him if he wishes to participate in the Forum. If not we shall

>leave it at that. If yes, we shall await his future

>contributions while asking him to comply with Forum's and

>Debate's rules. BTW he may challenge them and have them
>eventually modified by Forum, always remembering that in
>our DD Forum he would have one voice in current 27.
>
>His current message cannot be presented to the Forum, as it
>is at variance with several Forum rules. A few examples:
>
>ANT: "Paradoxically, Particracy manages outspokenly to give
>the people ALL of  what the people want to receive ..."
>
>At variance with Debate Pertinency: It lacks justification,
>while being contrary to Forum's consensus that Particracy
>robs us (fishermen, cultivators, craftsmen, etc.) of all
>we wish and need to live and work adequately.

(ant)

Perhaps your Forum Coordinator does not know the

meaning of  the word "outspokenly".  It meant, IMHO,

something like "aloud", that belongs, anyway, to a realm

of  *words*, not of actions -- about which acting I cant

discuss any other's experience with being robbed etc.

Anyway, I didn't address anything to your forum. The

"Appendix" below is yours, not mine.

(G.)

>Antonio's paragraph starting with "Unavoidably, any I&R
>proposed issue is under great risk of being conditioned by
>the Bureaucracy in office..." is not understandable to simple
>Forum members. Does he, or does he not agree with Forum's
>stand on I&R (2.1.1.I&R) and if not then why?
>
>Antonio's comments on "2.2.1.1.2.LOGISTIC" and in particular
>"Which (self education) is not a matter of "Consensus
>Building" upon some top-down"platform" or "constitution"..."
>is not acceptable. Following the structuration rule it should
>deal with a single issue, namely the 3P Platform and problems
>of learning to use it. but instead it deals with some Deus ex
>Machina and non pertinent topics. What has any "top-down
>platform" to do here? What is it BTW? Why not "left-right
>platform" for that matter? What  "constitution"? Why discuss
>here Consensus Building? Forum agreed on this topic having
>essential importance for DD procedures. Antonio may of course
>challenge it and try to convince the Forum, but only by
>hanging his arguments under the chapter "Consensus Building"
>an not under Logistic where it's like a hair in the soup.

(ant)

Perhaps the Coordinator is referring to your personal

workshop at workshop_fg(at)yahoogroups.com -- to which

I am in a "lurking" mode, since you as the workshop owner

posted to it:

QUOTE

******************************

At 13:59 +0100 20-01-2005, Georges Metanomski wrote:

> Subject: [workshop_fg] Dog barks, the
> caravan pursues its way.
> Reply-To: workshop_fg(at)yahoogroups.com
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Mr Rossin wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> At 20:20 +0100 19-01-2005, Georges Metanomski wrote:
> >=====================================
> >This post endeavors to clarify the DD
> >and AE (Applied Epistemology) Workshops
> >in general and that concerning Abortion
> >in particular.
> >=====================================
> >Simulation
> >----------
> > Since the availability of AE in form of IM
> > (Informatic Model)s it became a common
> > practice to test complex problems in
> > reduced and simplified IM's or Simulators
> > before considering concrete solutions.
> (ant)
> Rather than clarifying, this "premise" of yours
> sounds ultimately muddling. It assumes indeed
> that AE has become a common practice to test
> via IMs complex problems even before (that is,
> even without) considering concrete solutions.
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> This is an alert to Workshop participants:
> For some pathological reasons Mr Rossin tries to
> sabotage our work.
>
> This is not an answer to Mr Rossin, who will
> not get answers from me as long as he persists in
> this pathological attitude.
>
> To Workshp participants:
>
> I asserted indeed:
> <<<
> Since the availability of AE in form of IM
> (Informatic Models) it became a common
> practice to test complex problems in
> reduced and simplified IM's or Simulators
> before considering concrete solutions.
> >>>
>
> This most common practice consists of
> following steps:
>
> 1.Abstract concept
> 2.Informatic simulation
> 3.Concrete concept
> 4.Prototype simulation
> 5.Concrete implementation / production
>
> Usually results of 3 and 4 are fed back to 2
> resulting in short and long cybernetic
> approximation loops (2,3,2,3... and
> 2,3,4.2,3,4...).
>
> Our Workshop is the step 2 within the first
> short loop, which shows how long is the way
> ahead. Hopefully we will be able to carry out
> several short loops with good convergence and,
> in some future, initiate the long
> loop.
>
> Georges.

*************************************

ENDQUOTE

BTW, I do not see that you did "initiate the long loop"

so far.  Further, during the last nine months, I did'nt

read so many discussants posting to it, but two only.

Sincerely, I wish good luck to your workshop, but I cant

contribute to it any more since you seem to discuss the

persons -- or the dogs -- rather than the arguments.

I recall, I detailed the matter in three writings of mine, plus

one of Aki Orr, all of them linked to the post you seem to

pretend you -- or your Forum Coordinator -- are replying to:

http://www.flexible-learning.org/eng/einstein.htm

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/rossin04.htm

http://www.abolish-power.org

and do not see any comment about.

(G.)

>Antonio's "Unfortunately, the so-called "RELATIVISTIC
>DIALECTIC" is presented in facts as an ABSOLUTE REFERENTIAL"
>lacks justification and its sarcasm seems to imply some
>emotional and personal rather than rational stand.

(ant)

Perhaps the two of you do not know the linguistic problem

of a symptomatic value of language. Indeed, there was no

sarcasm but in your eyes, and the needed "justifications" --

but I would say "explanations" -- are exposed copiously at:

http://www.flexible-learning.org/eng/einstein.htm

(G.)
> RD in general and its logical and logistic implementation,

> the CN is the unanimously accepted Forum's base and

> support. It may of course be called into question, but only

> by a constructive definition of a better support and certainly

> not by sarcastic emotional vociferations.

>==========================================

>In name of our Forum
>Georges

(ant)

Georges, you hold the very bad habit of  changing the original

"Subject" in the message-headers you are replying to, so the

reader cannot follow the discussion thread but your comments

only.

The original message header, in this case, was:

QUOTE

(...)

To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net

Cc: cicdd(at)yahoogroups.com, democracy-europe(at)yahoogroups.com

(...)

From: Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>

Sender: cicdd(at)yahoogroups.com

(...)

Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 05:19:22 +0200
Subject: [cicdd] Re: For Georges: supporting  the Declaration ...

Reply-To: cicdd(at)yahoogroups.com

ENDQUOTE

from which it emerges that the Direct Democracy base

is not that of your workshop only, and that it is not so

"unanimously accepted".  Of course you are entitled to

hold an "unanimous" group of people who accepts your

RD axioms as the sole Referential of discussions passing

through it -- but Democracy is another kettle of fish.

Democracy, at least as I see it as, is made with confrontations

of opposite opinions first of all -- which quality does not seem

that of  your unanimous workshop.  Now, if your workshop

would produce DD Constitutions, Declarations, and Proposals

of practical policies with DD relevance, I would be happy to

share-in to it.

Conversely,  if  your workshop behaves like the Courts, to

wit, it charges with "barking dog" and "sarcastic emotional

vociferations" any counter-argument -- like mine --  to its

"unanimously accepted... base", then it goes to look rather

like a fundamentalist madrasas, than a democratic agora.

I mean, I dislike discussions where arguments of a possible

general order are turned into personal quarrels. Usually I do

not reply to them, but every now and then I feel obliged to do

-- like now - for which I apologize.

(G.)

>========================================================
>Appendix, The DD Forum
>
>Our village DD Forum is IMO the only real DD activity
>outside of Israeli Kibuzim. It has initiated, discussed and
>agreed upon several issues, counting some local and
>national level successes.
>Locally it obliged regional administration to stop
>polluting the soil with chemical herbicides.
>Nationally, it started the debate on windmills, which
>extended itself over several associations and influenced
>the parliament's vote which severely restricted the
>monster.
>A recent topic is the DD itself, documented in

><http://members.fortunecity.com/georges/workshops/democracy/index.html>

>========================================================

(ant)

I wonder whether your workshop applied some antibody in

order not to fall into a "snapshot" itself -- see under the item

2.1.1.I&R in your "transition towards DD" linked document.

Btw, I'm going to FWD the original message to the Epistemology

list, since you took this list into the discussion thread, so to allow

the interested readers, if any, to grasp the whole meaning of what

is passing through.

Regards,

antonio