[Prev] [Next] [Index]
[Thread Index]
00610: Re: [WDDM] Poll results posted: interesting read
From: |
Georges Metanomski <zgmet(at)wanadoo.fr> |
Date: |
Mon, 29 May 2006 00:22:59 +0200 |
Subject: |
Re: [WDDM] Poll results posted: interesting read |
WDDM webmaster wrote:
Hi!
The results of the December poll are finally summarized and posted at
http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/Wiki/HowToProceedPoll
We would appreciate if you at least acknowledged the receipt of this e-mail. We
would appreciate even more, if all those who have not participated in the Poll,
answered at least the following question:
Why have you joined the WDDM? Or even better: What role, if any, do you see for
yourself in WDDM in the future? It can be just that of a completely passive
supporter endorsing the DD efforts.
Thank you,
Mirek
==============================================
I would be a real bastard if I did not acknowledge this
mail. However, I do it only of personal sympathy for
Mirek and of admiration of his superhuman efforts.
Superhuman, but IMO so childishly naive.
I have joined WDDM and some other lists in hope to
do together something in the direction of DD. I have
exposed years ago my view of IMO the only way towards
DD and, as it has never been discussed I stick to its
original version attached to this post.
For any practical action I estimate a minimum Shadow
Parliament size as 1% of the voting population, i.e.
as 200000 for a country like Poland. Our "Worldwide"
poll participation of SEVEN is not even ridiculous,
it's Alice in Wonderland. Forgetting the Worldwide
ambitions, how do we get 200000 members for a small
country like Poland? Now, it's not impossible to
mobilize masses. Pope's visit mobilised a crowd of
900000 in Cracovie. Maybe we should get the Pope as
WDDM marketing manager?
But supposing that a dream comes true and we get 200000
members, that would start the real trouble. In a genuine
DD context starting with free Initiative they would
easily produce 10 million messages, half complete garbage
and the rest mainly synonyms saying the same thing with
different words. Now, even with our ridiculous population
Mirek conceives the necessity of moderation "to avoid
tons of junk mail". How may we moderate 10 million posts?
Who would read them?
We come to Logistic: With exception of my CN, nobody even
imagined a 3 function platform (Initiative, Debate, Vote),
let alone started to develop it. It would of course
encompass automatic filters of junk and synonyms, as
a minor problem compared with its main structure.
And supposing that we get a platform, we come to the
toughest, to the sincerity. As long as the "discussion"
turns around manifests and constitutions, our eventual
members will contribute like hell, each showing how
brilliant he is and how stupid are the others. But if
it came to decide to cut average income by 20% in order
to save national economy and to curb the unemployment,
the whole group would dissolve into thin air.
Unless it would develop the sincerity of Kibutzim, whose
members propose themselves necessary sacrifices and vote
for them.
I have joined WDDM in hope to research and hopefully
to at least partially implement procedures and devices
practically leading towards DD of future generations.
In the present Alice in Wonderland context there is
nothing I can do. I'll stay for some time in lurking
mode of sympathy to Mirek, unless he finds that I'm
disturbing.
Georges.
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.
[Prev] [Next] [Index]
[Thread Index]