Re: For Georges: supporting the Declaration ...

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

At 21:36 +0200 24-09-2005, Leopoldo Salgui wrote:

> > I'd like also to support it, but how
> do I do it?
> > Georges
> >
> > PS. My support does not mean that I find it pragmatic.
> > Indeed, I believe that ALL actions of WDDM and CICDD
> > are nice games without any practical, pragmatic impact.
> > I justify this stand in
> >
> http://members.fortunecity.com/georges/demo_archive/transition_to_democracy
> >.html which is known to our list, but
> which nobody so far
> > discussed.
>
> Dear Georges,
> thanks for your support. In a former email I have explained how to
> support the
> Declaration. However, I have added your name inferring following
> data:
> Name/Email: Georges Metanomski <zgmet(at)wanadoo.fr>
> Country: France
> Group / website: Not applicable
> if above data is no correct, please send me an email.
>
> Please, check the most updated list of undersigned in
> http://64.62.195.58/wddf/download.php?id=11
> http://64.62.195.58/wddf/viewtopic.php?t=54
>
> Regards, Leo

Antonio, jumping-in:

Really, George's writing
http://members.fortunecity.com/georges/demo_archive/transition_to_democracy

was not so known to the list - at least to the list-member I am.

Let me try to discuss it now, inserting my comments into its text.

It reads:

> Let us consider the problem of transition towards
> DD in a structured form.
>
> ===============================================
> 1.REVOLUTION.
>
> 1.1.FOR.
> --------
> Eventual arguments for Revolution could be
> proposed and inserted here as paragraphs
> 1.1.1, 1.1.2, etc.
> So far we don't 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.

(ant)

Paradoxically, Particracy manages outspokenly to give the

people ALL of  what the people want to receive -- according

with existing possibilities and resources of course -- even

before the people may ask for or decide about.

Which means, Particracy decide in advance All what the

people may ask for, as a rule

In the case of DD, which requires the people do decide

directly what they want to be given, Particracy realizes

in no time that it is wrong, or at least, backwards.

This implies dialectical competition (not cooperation at all)

between Democracy and Particracy - in facts, even though

Politicians claim in their words that they are performing "true

Democracy" simply because they are "democratically" elected.

Yet this kind of elections have to be encompassed  in the

Snapshot (in the author's terminology, see below) domain.

In facts DD denies Particracy to choose and decide policies,

as Aki Orr so aptly exposed in http://www.abolish-power.org

This basic denying bans Particracy establishment from

accepting proposals and policies made by the people.

===============

> 2.1.1.I&R
> ---------
> 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 implies necessarily 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 often confused with DD would be
> in reality the most dangerous dodging maneuver
> of Particracy against the true DD.

(ant)

Unavoidably, any I&R proposed issue is under great

risk of being conditioned by the Bureaucracy in office

and other alike staff implementing the agenda through

mass media advertising, forums and debates, leading

to "snapshot" decisions in what is called "Consensus

building".

The question arises, whether Bureaucracy officials

2.1.1.1. - shall be chaired by the Particracy leadership
   -- which option keeps them under Particracy's control
   to secure the Particracy power-holding interests and
   decisions over the people's --

2.1.1.2   - or by the people directly.

Since the people are kept far away from controlling

the setting-up of the bureaucracy staff, the latter

seems to be chaired according with the Particracy's

needs of holding decisional power over the people --

which power the politicians won't wash their hands

even, also in the occasion of political disasters.

Rather, politicians will always find out, and point to,

some outer enemy to fight against as the culprit of

any  such disaster but themselves.

On their side, Bureaucracy staff are unlikely to turn

against the Particracy giving them jobs and benefits,

which makes the 2.1.1 I&R exception become much

absurd -- unless the people were able either:

2.1.1.2.1.  to take upon themselves the full control of
        Bureaucracy staff (let alone the advertisers), or

2.1.1.2.2.  to free themselves (i.e., their minds self-fixing)
        from the so-called "Manipulation of Consent" that
        is currently grasped, held and managed by Particracy.

=======================

> 2.2.ACTION DETERMINES LEGISLATION.
> ----------------------------------
> As consequence of all above it seems the only
> way left. Which form may it take?  We 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. 0.1% of the
> 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 our 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.

(ant)

Which makes *self*-Education become mandatory, in

order to get the 2.2.1.1.1 Group into being able to pay

attention in the DD problematic with cooperative and

purposeful aims.

Which is not a matter of "Consensus Building" upon some

top-down"platform" or "constitution" -- which the people

pay no attention into, by postulate.

It sounds rather a matter of getting (educating) the people

into being able to spot and choose their own proposals and

policies bottom-up.  This requires *confrontation* among

different platforms and constitutions *inside one same*

2.2.1.1.2.1. "3F" E-Discussion *overt* room --
        that's something else but a

2.2.1.1.2.2  3F" *closed* E-Platform -- such as

         Particracy does as.

Plainly, this 2.2.1.1.2.LOGISTIC shall start since earliest

education of people, at babyhood when parents are the only

teachers by means of family feed-back for language and

interpersonal relationship patterning (self)-learning.

About this 2.2.1.1.2.LOGISTIC priority, a point to be

discussed and perhaps improved is free in the Internet

at http://www.flexible-learning.org/eng/einstein.htm

==========================

> 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.
> 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 and partially defined in
>
> RELATIVISTIC DIALECTIC

(ant)

Unfortunately, the so-called "RELATIVISTIC DIALECTIC"

is presented in facts as an ABSOLUTE REFERENTIAL,

i.e., a 2.2.1.1.2.2  3F" *closed* E-Platform.

That is, RD is presented as the "frame of references"

within which any discussion is foregrounded, and thus

discussion cannot question the mechanism of discussion

itself -- i.e. the mechanism of the people's democratic

sharing-in to politics, encompassing their relationship

with Particracy -- without being "prima facie" absurd.

In short, RD for as it is presented as, becomes a kind

of absurdity:

2.2.1.1.4. ABSURDITY

and the one who wants to implement DD through RD

falls subsequently into the domain of  just Delirious

Thinking (DT).  Which does not imply that a DT shall

be insincere: rather the reverse.  But any DT has some

precise DT rules to obey to, to become successful.

About these DT rules there is a draft, still undiscussed, at:

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/rossin04.htm

========================

Just my "discussion" two cents,

antonio

--

Antonio Rossin - Neurologist
  ‚ Dialectic Philosopher ‚
mailto:rossin(at)tin.it
http://www.flexible-learning.org

Coordinamento ISPO Italy:
http://www.simpol.org
mailto:ispo.italy(at)simpol.org