Some comments on GM's SHADOW PARLIAMENT

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

I read and comment some points of George's "SHADOW PARLIAMENT"

QUOTE
> 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.
ENDQUOTE

(ant)
To expose the problem, this paragraph should be divided in two parts:
2.2.1.1.2.1.  Against
Mental rigidity engendered by our educational system
(indeed, some analysis of "our educational system" could help, here, in
order to check out whether there are positive and/or negative features of
this system, aiming at improving it.)

2.2.1.1.2.2.  For (Pre-requisites)
only very young and uneducated, or rather self educated people were able
to make worth while contributions to CN.

(this statement looks rather relevant, to be underlined, because it
addresses
the target straight.
BTW, there it appears a new acronym, CN, without any previous reference
in the document.  I shall interpret it as "DD".
==============================================
QUOTE
> 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, its necessary condition is the New Manner of Thinking
> discussed below.
ENDQUOTE
(ant)
This implies that there will be no sincere protagonist of DD even,
except the
Israeli people, since it sounds quite unlikely that  people  from other
countries
-- especially those addressed in point 2.2.1.1.2.2. Pre-requisites --
may enter
voluntarily  a Kibbutzim.  The other way seems to be more feasible, at
least
theoretically, that is exporting the Kibbutzim collectivity model from
Israeli
into foreign countries.
That is, this point requires more deepening, not to fall into absurdity.

Also, some hints about the development of DD (if any -- reasonably caused
thanks to the Kibbutzim model) in the Israeli country could  help.
======================================================
QUOTE
> 2.2.1.1.4. SECOND ENLIGHTENMENT
(cut by ant)
> 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
ENDQUOTE

(ant)
This implies that the ontological foundations of Direct Democracy stem from
a so-called "Relativistic Dialectic" and especially from Georges
Metanomski's
Relativistic Phenomenology.

I guess, this assumption seems far more compatible with the (un-quoted)
2.1. LEGISLATION DETERMINES ACTION  item in GM's document,
since it is the Ontological foundations, namely RD, the "legislation" that
might determine the DD action.

Th After all, it has been the "action" of Descartes, Galileo
and Newton that determined the first Enlightenment, which has been later
"legislated" by Kant end the Encyclopedists.

All of which contradicts GM's preferences (and mine) that are in favor
of  .2.2. ACTION DETERMINES LEGISLATION, which way "
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."
====================================
QUOTE
> 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
ENDQUOTE

(ant)
Trying to draw a conclusion, GM's contribution appears to be in favour
of the foundations of a "Second Enlightenment and to its socio-political
outcome, the Direct Democracy", i.e. "legislation".  Whic seems to be
contradictory to the document aims as exposed in 2.2. paragraph.

Therefore, the "Shadow Parliament" document doesn't meet the DD
target requirements, since the basic DD people appear to live inside
another world and speak another, far simpler language.  Unless the
"sincere" target of the document was another: not exactly the world
of Direct Democracy, but the world of the Academe and the "Second
Enlightenment" Encyclopedists.   Does the History repeat itself?


Regards,

antonio

----------------- original post ----------------------


Georges Metanomski wrote, with subject: Re: [WDDM] Re: [FixGov] How
the Political Parties are possible at World level under World Democracy?
> --- Bruce Eggum <bruceeggum(at)gmail.com> wrote:
> =====================================================
> BE:
>  At this
>
> > time more and more people realize they do have the
> > power to participate in
> > government.
> ====================================================
> G:
> Wishful thinking. I observe that people lose the
> faculty of reasoning and realizing whatever it may be
> and react socially only to manipulation and
> conditioning. It's no more question
> of "obedience" and "servitude", but of considering
> power, like gravity, as force majeure against which
> it's not only inefficient, but stupid to revolt.
> And nobody wants to revolt. People want a strong
> guy solving for them problems and leaving them to
> quietly eat, drink and copulate. Look at the last
> elections in France. The strongest guy came through
> and candidates proposing I&R got about 1% of votes.
> ====================================================
> BE:
>
> > Therefore the people need to network together and
> > decide what they want in
> > their community, state, country, world ...
> ===================================================
> G:
> That's what you think they need, but all they desire
> is a lot of food, drink and sex.
>
> That's why I stress the SINCERITY in my Shadow
> Parliament as the essential prerequisite of DD.
>
> http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/WRITINGS/POLITICS/shadow_eng.html
>
> Only after it's met, people will eventually need,
> what you assume the do now.
>
> And please, stop confusing "government" or executive
> with "governance", which is what DD addresses.
>
> Georges.
> ====================================================