Re: [WDDM] about the author of "Venomous vomits"

[Georges Metanomski <zgmet(at)yahoo.com>]

Hi Antonio,
Rather fair and decent post, with slight exceptions,
which I comment inline.
Georges.

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

> Hi list,
>
> Georges Metanomski -- I met him face-to-face at
> Munich a six years ago --
> is a old chap of about eighty who survived the
> Warsaw Ghetto massacre
> made by the Nazi at the beginning of WWII.  Later,
> as the war ended, he
> attended the group of Infeld, a pupil of Einstein.
> So, he became talented
> in Physics and calculus.
>
> G.M.  is working out a updating of the history of
> the scientific knowledge,
> trying to lead the users up to a point where he is
> planning his
> "Relativistic
> Dialectic"theory
=====================================================
A:i
he presents as the salvation of the world.
=====================================================
G:
Not quite. It's Einstein who claimed that
"A new manner of thinking is essential if humankind
is to survive".
As researcher in his team I endeavored to define
some such NMT without ever pretending that it's
the only one possible, nor that it guaranties the
"salvation". I asserted that the ABSENSE of any such
NMT may lead to catastrophe, which has a totally
different logical connotation.
=====================================================
A:
> Unfortunately, his theory suffers from too much
> hierarchy (with himself as
> the mastermind of a New World Order) and too little
> Dialectic (he doesn't
> bear his theses -- that he presents like axioms,
> kinda absolute truths
> -- being
> criticized by any antithesis).
=====================================================
G:
It could be fair, if preceded by "IMO". Declared
ex cathedra by virtue of godlike absolute knowledge
it's unfair and, additionally, false. Axiom, unlike
Dogma is by definition refutable and so is my RD,
axiomatic, thus refutable, thus essentially anti-
absolute.
Trouble with chat lists is that nothing gets
remembered, let alone accumulated and the present list
is still trying and failing to define what's
"Democracy". I have presented years ago the RD
as part of "Shadow Parliament", which I believe to
be the only way to DD.
It fell of course in total oblivion, so I attach it
here for the hell of it.
It's also available in
http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/WRITINGS/POLITICS/shadow_eng.html
=====================================================
> Every now and then -- at least yearly, at Easter
> because it is the
> anniversary
> of the Warsaw Ghetto massacre -- G.M. makes us
> remember the Holocaust.
======================================================
A:
> Also, he presents himself as the top defender of the
> Hebrew race against
> all
> those people who do not respect the Holocaust
> memory.  He claims against
> them:  "I spit in your face"...
======================================================
G:
Not "top defender", but a fellow who did his little
bit as a 14 years old kid in Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
and elsewhere, whenever called upon.

Not of "Hebrew race", as IMO there ain't no such
animal, but, by solidarity with victims of Holocaust
which I witnessed.

I don't care so much about those who don't respect
the memory of the Holocaust; it's the problem of
their dirty conscience. But I care about those who
prepare the new one and those who support them.
With respect to them I assume the historic stand of
Mordechai Anielewicz and Warsaw Mayor Starzynski,
expressed by their "I spit in your face".

Georges.
======================================================

.
.
BACK TO SITE PLAN
 Site Plan 

Shadow Parliament

Let us consider the problem of transition towards 
DD in a structured form.

1.REVOLUTION.

1.1.FOR.

Eventual arguments for Revolution could be 
inserted here as paragraphs 1.1.1, 1.1.2, etc. 
I personally do not see any.

1.2.AGAINST.

1.2.1.COST.

Recent Revolutions exterminated hundreds of millions
and ruined continents. A future Revolution may likely
exterminate billions and ruin the planet.

1.2.2.DEVIATION FROM OBJECTIVES.

None of known Revolutions achieved its declared
objectives and most achieved their contrary.

2.EVOLUTION.

As conclusion of 1. Evolution is the desired 
way. In very broad strokes it may take one of 
two forms:
-Legislation determines action,
-Action determines legislation.

2.1.LEGISLATION DETERMINES ACTION.

This means to postpone all practical DD 
procedures until respective legislation is in 
place. The only possible action seems to consist 
in petitions imploring such legislation. 
However, Particracy will just throw such 
implorations into the dust bin, as they would 
on the one hand imply restriction of its power 
and, on the other hand, carry no weight. 
The only exception may be implementation of some
form of I&R (Initiative and Referendum). Indeed, 
in crisis situations requiring extremely unpopular 
measures Particracy may find it comfortable to 
wash its hands and to discharge the politically 
disastrous responsibility on the shoulders of 
manipulated and conditioned people.
Manipulated and conditioned, because I&R is by
definition a snapshot and snapshots may easily
be conditioned by media and demagogy. DD starts
with a continuous "3F" Forum having all 3 functions
namely Initiative, Debate and Decision, with
Debate determining current consensus and 
Decision occurring when consensus reaches a
value predetermined by Forum's rules.
Snapshot I&R usually confused with DD would be 
in reality the most dangerous dodging maneuver
of Particracy against the true DD.

2.2.ACTION DETERMINES LEGISLATION.

As consequence of all above it seems the only 
way left. Which form may it take? I can see only 
one, the 2.2.1.Shadow Parliament presented below.

2.2.1.SHADOW PARLIAMENT.

Let us suppose, that we are a group satisfying
conditions of 2.2.1.1. below and having achieved
consensus with respect to some decision.
We will then be in position of putting enough
pressure on Particracy to make it fall in with our
request without humiliating and inefficient
implorations.
Seems fine at the first glance, but after a short
look at 2.2.1.1. Conditions we shall realize that 
it is far from plain sailing.

2.2.1.1.CONDITIONS.

2.2.1.1.1.SIZE.

In order to be able to put any pressure, the 
Group must count enough members. 1% of the voting
population seems to be a minimum, but of course 
it is just a guess. Only practice will tell.

2.2.1.1.2.LOGISTIC.

Consensus of a Group of that size may only be
achieved with help of an adequate "3F" E-Platform. 
Short experience with my CN shows that while 
such Platform is feasible, adequate and efficient, 
its refining and, above all, the apprenticeship 
of its use will require at least a generation. 
The main difficulty seems to reside not so much 
in Platform's complexity, but in mental rigidity 
engendered by our educational system making 
people unable to understand, let alone to apply 
concepts sorting of beaten paths.
Indeed, only very young and uneducated, or rather
self educated people were able to make worth while
contributions to CN.

2.2.1.1.3.SINCERITY.

It is the critical condition: members must be
capable to conceive and accept local, i.e. 
personal sacrifices involved by the global 
improvement. This short phrase implies a 
fundamental change of mentality, replacement of 
present egoism with something similar to the 
attitude of Israeli Kibbutzim. 
BTW I should think that each sincere protagonist
of DD should start by a stage in a Kibbutz, as
it's the only truly DD social group in the 
history. (The celebrated Athenian Democracy was
in reality an Oligarchy eliminating from power
the majority: metecs and slaves.)
If Logistics requires at least a generation, 
Sincerity will come still later, if ever,
It's necessary condition is the New Manner of
Thinking discussed below.

2.2.1.1.4.SECOND ENLIGHTENMENT

The site dedicated by G. Evans in EVANS ACADEMY 
to "Metanomski Papers":
 EVANS ACADEMY 
or explicitly:
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/metanomskiindex.htm

has as motto Einstein's assertion:

"A new manner of thinking is essential if humankind is to survive."

A clear call for Enlightenment understood as people's
emergence from obscurantism imposed dogmatically by 
established governance, media, education and religions. 

The First Enlightenment originated in the scientific 
revolution of Descartes, Galileo and Newton, and from 
the involved new Reason, wherefrom the alias "Age of
Reason". This new Reason explicated in ontological
and epistemological terms by Kant and in socio-political 
terms by the Encyclopedists spread the Enlightenment 
over the people and led to the French Revolution from 
which emerged the Particratic Oligarchy called 
"Representative Democracy". 
One may object that we contradict here the denial of
Revolutions (1.REVOLUTION). However, the French
Revolution betrayed in fact its Enlightenment seeds
and instead of emancipating people, changed the form of 
their oppression, first in the Terror, than in the
Empires and finally in the Particracy ruling till
our own days.
Still, Particracy is less bad than the autocracy of
the Ancien Regime and, above all, the best, if not
the only step towards DD. So, even betrayed by the 
Revolution, the First Enlightenment did not get 
completely lost.

Our epoch appears by analogy as origin of the "Second
Enlightenment". Einstein's new edifice of science 
reposes on an entirely refounded Reason supplanting 
antecedent Absolute Logic with Relativistic Dialectic.
Ontological, epistemological and socio-political 
explication of this Reason are still lacking, so that 
the Second Enlightenment stays in the bud, in a form 
that cannot be popularized and serve to free people 
from oppression of the established obscurantism.  

And we need it more than did the French people 
oppressed by the Ancien Regime. They were confined 
in slave labor and misery which was bad enough, but
our established obscurantism goes deeper and calls 
into question the very survival of humanity.

That's why we endeavor to explicate Relativistic
Dialectic in ontological and epistemological terms 
as a modest contribution to the Second Enlightenment 
and to its socio-political outcome, the Direct 
Democracy. 

Ontological foundations of RD may be seen in 
Relativistic Phenomenology