Some 2001 WDDM messages

Message: 2
   Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 04:44:40 -0700 (PDT)
   From: Georges Metanomski <>
Subject: Re: Digest Number 350

In our Forum Constitution existed as the set of Rules,
of course created and accepted by the Forum.
Any proposal had to comply with the Rules, i.e.with
the 'Constitution'.
Rules themselves were subject to challenge and, once
the challenge accepted by voting, all current problems
were suspended.
Stability was insured by a relatively high level of
Consensus required for Rules modifications.
--- Bruce Eggum <> wrote:
> I would like to address the second issue brought by
> Ignace Snellen.

Message: 3
   Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 08:25:03 -0700 (PDT)
   From: Georges Metanomski <>
Subject: (unknown)

Hi Daniel and all interested,
You seem to like quizzes. Here is another one. It goes
to the guts of the phenomenon of religion without
whose understanding it is vain to even start chatting
about DD.

Here it comes:

At the base of monotheistic religions  one finds a
'Theological Antinomy', a proposition postulating the
existence of an omniscient and omnipotent entity
God. This proposition appears to be a contradictio in

Indeed, if God is omniscient, He knows every detail of
the cosmos and cannot change it without contradicting
His own knowledge: an omniscient entity appears to be
necessarily impotent. On the other hand, an omnipotent
entity appears to be essentially ignorant, as all
objects of its knowledge are constantly submitted to
arbitrary changes due to its own illimited freedom and
>From the traditional logical point of view omniscience
and omnipotence are mutually exclusive i.e. they may
be assigned to the same entity only if related with
the operator ORR ("either-or", "exclusive or"). The
Theological Antinomy relates them however with the
operator AND, thus becoming a logical contradiction. 

Logic claims to be the base of human intelligence.
According to this claim logical contradictions are
banished from the human universe of discourse.
Consequently, all religions should have vanished due
the Theological Antinomy which, from the traditional
logical point of view, seems to prove that God cannot
possibly exist.

However, strangely enough, humanity does not seem to
care in the least about the claims of logic and has
never ceased to be religiously minded. Should we
conclude that humanity is hopelessly unintelligent
with exception of a few logicians? Or should we rather
look  for some explanation making on the one hand
religious   ideologies not necessarily incompatible
with human      intelligence while, on the other hand,
somehow          restricting the olympic claims of

Well, there you are. Good luck.


“Forum” wrote on:              Monday, April 09, 2001 12:03 PM     



  On the other hand, I think it is my democratic right to express myself with all the possible means, as Bold letters, italics, underlining or whatever I would use in the intonation of my oral speech in order to help the reader or persuade him.I am going to propose a change in this totaliristic clause of our Founding Documents, which I never thought  that it could be used against our Freedom of expressions.


Therfore,could you maybe accept  at first a change in our FD  for a  collective Spokemanship by two members in close cooperation, which will solve all issues? I think that this collective  responsibility sounds more Direct Democratic than the two different capacities with hierarchy between them, which remembers me of the existing  order of the Representative Democracy.
      In any way , I think that the  final  voting should  follow  our discussion about my proposal about the 2004 Olympic DD project and I need to  read your and everybody's comments about it, because it is essential for  my ineterst for  the capacity of Spokesperson of WDDM. So, could we postpone it according to our FD that oblige us for discussions of 2 weeks before voting?
                           George Kokkas


“Forum” wrote on  Saturday, April 07, 2001 9:03 PM


PS.   As I have already written my main point  is not  to try to express the common sense of the WDDM,  as  spokesperson, which  is a duty that Angela could  do for us, if she wishes, according to our cooperation rules and next wddm votings  giving her this authorisation, as Vice-spokesperson, because  of  my important obligations  to  keep contact  with  the other  DD  initiatives and Movements  ,as well as with the International Olympic  Committee, in case that you accept my proposal  to try introducing  Direct Democracy worldwide through the Cultural Olympics 2004.
                                    GEORGE KOKKAS