[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

00637: Re: [WDDM] Bernard Clayson's response

From: Gordan Ponjavic <geoerdeaen(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 02:35:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Bernard Clayson's response

Dear Richard, I have to respond to this e-mail.



Richard Moore <rkm(at)quaylargo.com> wrote:

Bernard> Fascinating, intriguing ....... and very predictable.
What is it in human nature that makes people in groups do,
and use, the 'tools' that they are against when used by the
ones that they are fighting i.e. the Representative
Democracy 'tools'.

I too found the move toward hierarchy quite predictable. Bernard asks
why we use these tools which in principle we are against. His
question is particularly poignant in the context of WDDM, presumably
a home of those who understand the value and practice of dialog and
deliberation.

My answer:

What exact principles you are talking about? What it seems to me is that none of us actually shares exact idea of there principles. For an example, I do not find hierarchy in collision to democratic principles, if that hierarchy is commonly acknowledged.

Concept of  authority is reality and I do not find very usefull thing if we deny it. Yet, what amuses me is that wddm gathers all of these people who "share" the same ideas, which is far from the truth. What is even more amusing is that this group called wddm want to educate others about these principles.

Pretty ignorant attitude I see. And this attitude is actual reason this initiative can not move forward from endless debates about nothing actually, as long as there is no one clear concept, no one clear abstraction to all of us.

Very amusing indeed.


In the case of WDDM, which is Internet based, I think the answer is
straightforward: the net is simply not an appropriate medium to
support a democratic process, not unless there is a strong
pre-existing shared understanding, shared goals, and a shared sense
of urgency, among the participants. Lacking these, there is always a
futile struggle to achieve a consensus out of chaos, by means of
sporadic email exchanges and website visits. I've seen the same
dynamics in countless net-based initiatives, many involving very
well-meaning and knowledgeable people.


As I noticed before, this ignorance of these knowledgable people, attitude that they obviously know things they actually do not really know, puts them way ahead of their actual potential in its very time. Internet communication is as any other communication, effective if we follow its rules. What I can notice, people who use this form of communication do actually not even intent to get fammilar to these rules, which makes this communication highly unefficient.


The tools of dialog and deliberation are indeed the tools needed to
support a democratic process, but they don't work well on the net;
they work in face-to-face gatherings. Hence it is not surprising that
WDDM fares no better than other groups on the net, despite its area
of expertise, and despite its valiant attempts to create rules of
online dialog that mirror proven face-to-face rules.

What I have noticed is that internet is not usefull for the groups that actually have no clue what is their common base, what are their common goals, what is their common mission, what is their common vision. And this leads to debacle of any group, no matter does it use internet as communication tool or not.

Bernard:> Democracy is supposed to be THE alternative to
representative democracy, yet:
a) no one knows how to make it work,
b) the first resort is to set up rules that may exclude the one with
guts enough to challenge the hypocrisy of the current system.

I think Bernard's observations are more interesting in the case of
the 'real world' - society - than they are in the context of
net-based groups. Indeed, I have been largely uninterested in WDDM
postings because they don't deal with the question that is in my view
most appropriate to this group, namely: How can the tools of dialog
and deliberation be used to support the emergence of a democratic
society? This is a question that needs to be answered, a question
that the people in this group are well-suited to address, and a
question that might be effectively pursued by net dialog.

Come to top politics group on google. There are some more or less interesting answers to this question. But we do actually have some answers which is good thing I think.


It is also a question that I have been seeking answers to for the
past five or six years. The results I've come up with are promising,
and they indicate that appropriate application of dialog processes
has the potential not only to support the operation of a democratic
society, but to bring about the transformation of society from its
currently sad configuration. I've written a complete report on this
investigation in the form of a book, "Escaping the Matrix: how We the
People can change the world" - http://EscapingTheMatrix.org.
Hmh. Do you have on line version, or at least some abstract to see where are you aiming at excatly? I am allways very interested in new aproaches. Would enjoy to see yours.


As regards the proposal before the group, I abstain from voting.
Voting is an inappropriate mechanism for almost anything,
particularly a democratic process.

That is pretty correct. Much more correct than to vote about issues you did not involved too at all, which is pretty degrading thing to all of those who pushed hard. Though, as long as those who work put themselves in degrading position due to wrong interpretation of the basic democraticall principles, becoming powerless instead of empowered (which is our common goal for society as whole, IMO) if I was not following this principle of correctness, I would vote NO out of protest to this degradation.


Regards,
Richard
http://cyberjournal.org
ATB;
Gale


[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]