Re: [WDDM] Getting the whole picture about DD

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

Georges Metanomski ha scritto:

> ==============
> Hi Antonio,
> I seem to feel in this your post some positive
> and sincere tones. I'll try to answer as sincerely
> as I can.
> ==============
> --- Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it> wrote:
>
>
> > Georges:
> >
> > My question is: Why the people do not want to
> > implement DD (such as it is defined in many valuable DD
> > documents, eg., in your Shadow Parliament)?
> >
> > Your answer follows :"Because they do
> > not read myShadow Parliament document."
> ===================
> G:
> That's not my answer. It would be:
> "because
> 1.They are not informed,
> 2.They are not motivated"
> ===================
Be not so formal, Georges.  In good substance, the
meaning of your answer looks like this: "Did they
read and study and understand your SP document,
they were informed and motivated.


> > Then I question : Why the people do not want
> > to read
> > your Shadow Parliament document - nor any alike
> > DD valuable document - ?
> >
> > Your answer (below) seems to be, substantially:
> > Because they did not read my Shadow Parliament
> > document.
> ================
> G:
> No. They neither want, nor don't want to read it,
> but don't know that it exists, not that there is
> such a concept as DD. And, if an unprepared person
> fell by chance on SP or similar, he would not
> understand it.
Agreed.  In other words, they do not have any slot
for DD and related concepts in their minds.   Which
assumption leads to two conclusions:
1. They have no unanswered question, nor aware
problem to solve, whose answering/solving would
require them to search more deeply than they did
up to date;
2.  Your SP and the alike DD documents appear to
be unseless in order to prepare/motivate them to
understand such concepts  as DD, because, to read
those documents, they should have been motivated
in advance.

> ================
>
> > Finally, my question becomes: How could we
> > make thepeople's majority go and read your
> > Shadow Parliament document, and all the alike
> > DD valuable documents?
> ==================
> G:
> We don't want to make majority READ any documents.
> We want to create one or more restricted and
> militant Shadow Parliament groups which would ACT,
> namely battle like Ha Shomer Ha Zair to inform and
> to motivate masses on the one hand and, on the other
> hand to put pressure on the Particracy.
> While working on unsolved logistic problems, to
> move DD from utopia to a realistic option.
>
> The way I propose involves initially small militant
> Shadow Parliaments making sincere self-applying
> decisions, like one I describe in SP:
>
> QUOTE
> A small forum discussed pollution and found out
> rightly or wrongly that the worst pollution source
> is the factory breeding of animals. Besides
> pollution it  involves unacceptable suffering of
> animals and mental corruption of attendants who
> become potential sadistic Auschwitz guards. The
> group condemned eating meat. Not as a theoretical
> principle, but as a self applying decision and all
> members stopped eating meat.
> UNQUOTE
>
> WDDM's unique raison d'etre would be to become such
> a militant group making self applicable decisions
> about concrete problems such as the factory breeding
> or specifying and programming 3F logistic support.
> Else, it will continue to be a chat and prattle list
> "discussing" how many angels can sit on DD's pinpoint.
>
> Georges
> ==================

Surely, the aim of Promiseland and Vegan international
vegetarian groups is a good one, as I can see in their
(Italian) newsletter.

What is but unclear to me, it is your planned way to
implement DD. I quote:

"The way I propose involves initially small militant
Shadow Parliaments making sincere self-applying
decisions, like one I describe in SP:"

How could it happen the passage from your "initially" to
a DD finally?  Notice that DD involves one's relationship
with the collective authority.  This relationship, once in DD,
turns from vertical hierarchic to horizontal peer-to-peer.

Accordingly, the vegetarian decisions, in the example,
don't affect any relationship with the collective authority
since no authority or political representative commands
the people to eat meat.

In my experience, I see lots of people who are able to
perform formally democratic decisions within their well
defined social contexts, or enclaves -- unless the policy
to be decided would involve their relationship with the
political authority in office. Indeed, as soon as such an
involvement should be overt, they disappear -- unless..

... unless they followed some natural leader who is in
competition with the ones in office.

I think of this last chance that it is the opposite of DD,
because it leads soon or late towards a dictatorship,
the History teaches.

Regards,

ant