| From: | "Bruce Eggum" <bruceeggum(at)gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date: | Fri, 3 Aug 2007 08:48:16 -0500 |
| Subject: | Re: [WDDM] Some comments on GM's SHADOW PARLIAMENT |
Dear Bruce
if you've found that my comments to George's are "excellent evaluation",
the, either you have got them misunderstood, or I shall have got something
wrong in my writing...
Cheers,
antonio
Bruce Eggum wrote:
> Excellent evaluation Antonio. The concept shadow parliament is perhaps
> good but the tools to implement fail the all people test.
> Bruce
>
> On 8/3/07, Antonio Rossin
> wrote:
>
> 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
> > anadequate "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.
> > ====================================================
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> Bruce Eggum
> Gresham Wisconsin, USA
> http://www.doinggovernment.com/
> Check out my Blog too
> http://bruceeggum.blogster.com/ <http://bruceeggum.blogster.com/>
>
>
>