Let us consider the problem of transition towards DD in a structured form. =============================================== 1.REVOLUTION. 1.1.FOR. -------- Eventual arguments for Revolution could be inserted here as paragraphs 1.1.1, 1.1.2, etc. I personally do not see any. 1.2.AGAINST. ------------ 1.2.1.COST. ----------- Recent Revolutions exterminated hundreds of millions and ruined continents. A future Revolution may likely exterminate billions and ruin the planet. 1.2.2.DEVIATION FROM OBJECTIVES. -------------------------------- None of known Revolutions achieved its declared objectives and most achieved their contrary. =============================================== 2.EVOLUTION. ------------ As conclusion of 1. Evolution is the desired way. In very broad strokes it may take one of two forms: -Legislation determines action, -Action determines legislation. 2.1.LEGISLATION DETERMINES ACTION. ---------------------------------- This means to postpone all practical DD procedures until respective legislation is in place. The only possible action seems to consist in petitions imploring such legislation. However, Particracy will just throw such implorations into the dust bin, as they would on the one hand imply restriction of its power and, on the other hand, carry no weight. The only exception may be implementation of some form of I&R (Initiative and Referendum). Indeed, in crisis situations requiring extremely unpopular measures Particracy may find it comfortable to wash its hands and to discharge the politically disastrous responsibility on the shoulders of manipulated and conditioned people. Manipulated and conditioned, because I&R is by definition a snapshot and snapshots may easily be conditioned by media and demagogy. DD starts with a continuous "3F" Forum having all 3 functions namely Initiative, Debate and Decision, with Debate determining current consensus and Decision occurring when consensus reaches a value predetermined by Forum's rules. Snapshot I&R usually confused with DD would be in reality the most dangerous dodging maneuver of Particracy against the true DD. 2.2.ACTION DETERMINES LEGISLATION. ---------------------------------- 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. 2.2.1.SHADOW PARLIAMENT. ------------------------ Let us suppose, that we are a group satisfying conditions of 2.2.1.1. below and having achieved consensus with respect to some decision. We will then be in position of putting enough pressure on Particracy to make it fall in with our request without humiliating and inefficient implorations. Seems fine at the first glance, but after a short look at 2.2.1.1. Conditions we shall realize that it is far from plain sailing. 2.2.1.1.CONDITIONS. ------------------- 2.2.1.1.1.SIZE. --------------- In order to be able to put any pressure, the Group must count enough members. 1% of the voting population seems to be a minimum, but of course it is just a guess. Only practice will tell. 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. 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, It's necessary condition is the New Manner of Thinking discussed below. 2.2.1.1.4.NEW MANNER OF THINKING. --------------------------------- In the site dedicated by G. Evans to my writings: EVANS ACADEMY I report that working in a branch of Einstein's team I read in a letter he addressed to us: "A new manner of thinking is essential if humankind is to survive." I am sure that in our systems of Particratic Oligarchies it's impossible to even formulate, let alone to solve the problems involved by DD in terms of the old, obsolete, dogmatic reason. That's why I dedicated over 40 years to developing this New Manner of Thinking (NMT) under the name of Relativistic Dialectics (RD). It is still in development. EVANS ACADEMY contains the first scratch pad version in a rather loosely structured form. The development version is in the temporary site DEVEL It contains detailed foundation of RD in Phenomenological Ontology. Once stabilized, it is destined to be uploaded to the EVANS ACADEMY. In the meantime comments and contributions to the development are most warmly invited and welcome.