From: | "Bruce Eggum" <bruceeggum(at)gmail.com> |
---|---|
Date: | Fri, 20 Jul 2007 02:17:38 -0500 |
Subject: | Re: [WDDM] Repeted answer to Antonio |
Bruce Eggum ha scritto:
> The issue is government. Let us discuss the processes which have been
> presented on government. If you disagree or agree please explain why.
> Perhaps if we analyze government instead of each other we can be on
> to much better things.
(ant)
I disagree. The issue is control. Which in its turn requires knowledge.
Which in its turn requires open dialectical discussion on everything.
As for myself, I don't care very much for what the government could be,
provided only the utmost amount of acknowledged people can, and want
to, control it directly - eg., via I&R - in what is called Democracy.
antonio
>
> I snip and comment on Georges Shadow Government. Mu opinion. (no i
> ain't humble, and i ain't seen many 'round here who were.)
>
> Georges Shadow Government, a different name but same process.
>
>
> Snapshot I&R What is snapshot I&R?
>
> Snapshot I&R usually confused with DD would be
>
> in reality the most dangerous dodging maneuver
>
> of Particracy against the true DD.
>
>
>
> Bruce shakes his head ???????????????????? huh?
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> But than Georges says:
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Bruce states: So, you add all the dogmatic academic crap and we are
> back to zero!
>
>
>
> Initiative and BINDING Referendum preceded by discussion, evaluation,
> is certainly not a "snapshot". Certainly many things go into the
> choices people make, much of which is uncontrollable. Media will
> always have an impact. People must trust less and examine closer.
> Lessons, some are hard. But lessons do come. The I&Br Process = Idea,
> discussion, initiative presented, more discussion, perhaps amended,
> initiative accepted (or rejected), presented for referendum (more
> discussion) Binding Referendum pass or fail.
>
>
>
> I&BR could be the tool for people to install a government they could
> control. Control is where the power is.
>
>
>
> A massive infrastructure is needed to administrate a large country.
> If these people running government were given only administrative
> power, they would have to do what the people commanded. Elected
> administrators, recallable at any time.
>
>
>
> Shadow government could than be brought in totally. It would be the
> process of the people deciding what commands to give the administrators.
>
>
>
> Now, we have many good software programs which could help the people
> in their deliberations. This of course must be done totally outside of
> the government infrastructure.
>
> This is what WDDM began to do, than was stopped by to many wanting to
> do it their way rather than coming to a WDDM Community decision. That
> is why WDDM has been trying to develop it's own infrastructure, so it
> could proceed on it's goal to provide information on Initiative and
> Referendum which the people could use to take over control of their
> own community government.
>
> Until people see they really can have control and what steps they must
> take to gain control, they will do nothing. That is the clinker,
> nobody can do it for the people, the people must do it themselves. But
> they must understand what must be done and have some belief the
> process will work. Thus a massive sales /education process is
> necessary using video, recordings, phone messages, websites, email,
> all of it. Not telling anyone what to do, but that they CAN!
>
> This email list gossiping gets nowhere. Let us take this to WDDM Forum
> and proceed. Just go to WDDM.org and sign in. If you need help with
> passwords the help is there or email Mirek.
>
> Georges you will love it. It is a FORUM!
>
> Regards, Bruce
>
>
>
> On 7/19/07, Antonio Rossin
> wrote:
>
>
> Giorgio Menon ha scritto:
> > Antonio Rossin wrote:
> >>
> >> Well, I remember very well your insulting violence
> >> in rejecting any antithesis to your theses as "prattle,
> >> meaningless asininity, bullshit" and alike pleasantries.
> >
> > Antonio,
> > you are a neurologist and no one better than you can let me
> > understand what's happening in Georges' mind. I repeatedly
> > read his insults and contempt toward anyone who disagree
> > with his ideas. Then i read this:
> >
> > "1.I don't write TO PEOPLE, but ABOUT their massages.
> > I'm probably the only person on this list who does not write
> > ad personam. If it happened once or twice, show me where
> > and I appologize in advance."
> >
> http://groups.google.it/group/epistemology/msg/bce11ad48a47c984?hl=it&
> < http://groups.google.it/group/epistemology/msg/bce11ad48a47c984?hl=it&>
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Giorgio
> >
> >
> Giorgio,
>
> In my humble opinion -- but also in my past experience
> as a psychiatry practitioner -- it is a matter of one's brain
> hemispheres working together to process some thinking
> line. The question is, re to a given input-idea-argument,
> do the two brain hemispheres co-operate together in good
> balance, or there is a strong, possibly absolute dominance
> of one hemisphere over the other?
>
> This question is intriguing.
>
> In the past, we have been told about a "mono-cameral
> mind" which, along with the evolution of humankind,
> is being slowly substituted by some "bi-cameral mind".
>
> Let's suppose, humankind is still evolving from the
> "one hemisphere only!" individual's manner to process
> his-her believing-behaving procedures, towards some
> "both hemispheres working together in good balance"
> manner of thinking and behaving.
>
> More recently we have been told by some "Shumacher
> Society" that there are two different attitudes of human
> mind: the "*either/or*" one (which I would call "*either* one
> *or* the other brain hemisphere!") and the "*and - and*" one
> (which corresponds to what I would call "*and* one *and* the
> other brain hemisphere tied together in a good balance").
>
> Now, let me recall, it is not that us humans are so rigidly
> divided into two strictly defined categories, the *either/or*
> and the *and-and*. There can be tendencies, nuances and
> different inputs-ideas-arguments that can be processed as
> well within one's thinking machine (AKA Logics) in this
> or that ways -- likely enough, with the only exception of
> the religious fundamentalist, whose mind is able to perform
> the either/or manner of thinking-behaving exclusively, for
> any input-idea-argument.
>
> Practically, the "either-or" mind is far more precise than the
> "and-and" one. The "either-or" minded people don't bear
> uncertainty, but absolute ( i.e. unquestionable) truth only.
> Equally, the "either-or" minded one does not bear dialectics
> (which implies antitheses to one's theses as a methodology)
> nor being questioned-criticized.
>
> A question arises: is the scientific fundamentalist similar
> to the religious fundamentalist? I think it is, depending on
> how the scientist behaves, i.e. performs science : whether
> for the sake of the (absolute) scientific truth -- or for the
> sake of those of us who will follow, to wit, our children.
>
> Clearly, the religious fundamentalist behaves for the sake
> of God, regardlessly for their children 's life.
>
> Also, fundamentalism (religious or scientific, it does not
> matter) seems incompatible with Democracy, even if the
> fundamentalist claims it is.
>
>
> However, I must remark, these different characters of
> human mind do not present in a "pure" form", even.
> The "either/or" and the "and-and" traits of the human
> mind represent the opposite poles of a continuum with
> countless intermediate positions, although each one of
> us (our esteemed George Metanomski included) cannot
> but tend towards either one or the other of these opposite
> polarities...
>
>
> Hoping this helps,
>
> antonio
>
>
>
>
> --
> Bruce Eggum
> Gresham Wisconsin, USA
> http://www.doinggovernment.com/ < http://www.doinggovernment.com/>
> Check out my Blog too
> http://bruceeggum.blogster.com/
>
>
>