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

00664: Re: [WDDM] Policy Proposal

From: <WDDM webmaster>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:00:26 -0600
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Policy Proposal

Re: Georges communications attached below

Georges, thanks for your effort.
We had your Transitions to Democracy (with the Shadow Parliament as the
preferred way) posted at the WDDM already for over a year at
http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/Wiki/TransitionToDemocracy
(and I've now added there your new final section).
Unfortunately, we have not discussed it much yet.
I personally agree with your conclusions completely - that the preferred, and
most probably the only feasible transition to DD is to assemble a sufficiently
large fraction of citizens who would want DD (your section 2.2, 2.2.1 - Shadow
Parliament). That it would require new way of thinking and would take a long
time to get to this point. Many other WDDM members seem to came to the same
conclusion, they just use a different language.

It would be interesting to know whether all of you believe that this is the
case, and if not, what is your opinion on this issue. (QUESTION 1)
A related question: has Georges in the above essay listed all the possibly
imaginable ways of transition to DD, or has he missed something?

As to the second communication (Policy Proposal) - it definitely contains a lot
of food for thought, first of all a very good "general universally accepted
definition" of DD. But this very definition may not actually be so universally
accepted even among the members of WDDM, see the current discussion in the
Forum on this subject:
http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?22,317,317#msg-317
Or better said, it is not disputed that this is the correct definition of pure
democracy, but whether this is what WDDM is to promote.

So here is a second question for the general WDDM membership: what are your
thought on this question: what kind of democracy should WDDM promote?
(QUESTION 2)

Otherwise to points 2-5 in Georges proposal I would clarify/counter that WDDM
has no ambition to substitute any government or to create any rules or
instances of DD for any country or other communities. WDDM is a group (or
association
or possibly organization) that wants to promote DD. And all the rules and
structure we are talking about are only rules and structure for this group and
nothing else. From the text of Georges' proposal it seems that this is still
not fully understood!

And if WDDM (or any other group promoting DD) wants to be credible, it must
itself be "an instance of a DD collective", its internal structure and rules
must be based on DD principles.
Its apparently a big challenge, bigger than everybody thought in the beginning.
Everybody praises the significance of Internet and how it can bring about a
more inclusive democracy (e-democracy), but it seems (past WDDM experience
seems to show) that nobody actually knows yet how to use it effectively for
deliberations (and making of conclusions) of an online based group dispersed
all over the Earth, like our group. If we (or anybody else) can succeed in
devising an effective protocol for such online deliberations, this could be a
significant achievement in itself (also for the advancement of democracy).

So please, it would be appreciated if you tried to answer the above two
questions, and/or volunteered any related ideas. It could help to achieve at
least some consensus and make WDDM more meaningful.

And a constant reminder: try to follow and contribute to the ongoing
discussions in the WDDM forum. There is a new Proposals Forum there
(http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/list.php?23) where everybody is
welcome to contribute (even non-members).

Mirek Kolar



Georges Metanomski wrote:
1. > Shadow Parliament is the cornerstone of the proposal
I'm preparing for you. I started by updating it, editing
the final section "SECOND ENLIGHTENMENT".
It's available in

http://findgeorges.com/
MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS

2. > Attached Policy Proposal responds to Mirek's prompt
to "draft an alternative proposal for WDDM structure/
rules/whatever that would make WDDM a meaningful entity".
I copy it to several lists whose members may be interested
by some of its topics.
Georges


------------------------------------------------------------------------

*

====================================================
NOTE:
The present Policy Proposal responds to Mirek's prompt
to "draft an alternative proposal for WDDM structure/
rules/whatever that would make WDDm a meaningful entity".
Although expressed for simplicity's sake in declarative
mood, all its assertions are implicitly prefixed by "IMO",
conditional and open to discussion.

Cornerstone of the Proposal is the "Shadow Parliament" (SP)
available in
http://findgeorges.com/
MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS

It goes without saying that the Proposal and its
SP base are open to comments and suggestions.
====================================================

What's WDDM?
------------
Clearly a group of people sharing some
common objectives revolving around DD.

What are its objectives?
------------------------
WDDM's discussions seem to point to several
ones:

1.Define DD.

2.Determine DD's structures and rules.

3.Instruct one another about 1. and 2.

4.Consolidate WDDM into a DD Collectivity.

5.Create concrete DD instances of "World-Wide"
or at least country scope.

Comments.
---------
To 1. There is nothing to define, or, better
said, there is a general universally accepted
definition: "DD is a socio-political structure
concentrating the Legislation directly and
exclusively in the hands of people".
NOTE:
As any real Entity, each specific instance of
DD exists in a context within which it has a
particular scope ranging from a village, an
economic enterprise or a small collectivity,
to state and country within planetary context.
Interactions with the context is part of DD's
Legislature.

To 2. There is NOTHING to determine for WDDM.
Structures and rules of each instance of DD
are determined directly and exclusively by
its Forum and vary from instance to instance.
As fun and exercise WDDM members may of course
play with science fiction and discuss some
hypothetical instances of DD, but it is a
pure amusement and no real objective.

To 3. In the light of "To 1" and "To 2" there
is nothing to instruct anybody about. Still, 3.
accounts for the main traffic of WDDM, manifesting
the maybe deplorable but very human conceit, the
inclination to show how clever one is and how
stupid are the others. A popular song puts it in
the nutshell saying "teaching me what they don't
know how".

To 4. Total misunderstanding and unbelievable
naiveness. Whatever DD may be, it's a real
decision making structure whose outcomes imply
and impact essentials of members' life.
It presupposes some common economical
and ideological base shared by all members and
sincere attitude vowed by all of them (SP SINCERITY).
This Sincerity can be motivated only by the
urge to shake off some oppression and explicated
by Enlightenment emerging from the oppressing
obscurantism (SP SECOND ENLIGHTENMENT).
The unique existing DD of Kibbutzim emerged from
millenary christo-feudal oppression and was
carried by the Enlightenment and Marxist ideology.
WDDM does not meet a single prerequisite of a
concrete, real life DD community. All rules,
constitutions and other crab addressing the
delusory mirage of WDDM being a concrete DD
instance are simple hallucinations.

To 5. Creating a concrete DD political instance
of country, let alone of "World-Wide" scope
presupposes an influence similar or stronger than
that of Christianity on Rome, of the Enlightenment
on French and American Revolution, of Zionism and
Communism on creation of Israel.
Tiny chat list which has no defined orientation
nor any reader base, but nevertheless pretends
to exert such an impact, manifests naiveness
going without any comment.

Reflections
-----------
Having thus shown that apparent objectives of
WDDM are delusory and impractical, should we
conclude that the Group is irreparably void
of interest and useless?

Certainly, unless we find some pertinent and
practicable objective compatible with our means
and competencies. In searching one, it seems
advisable to ask history for hints and guidance.

Refraining from moral evaluations and personal
preferences we note that each socio-political
diachrony invariably stemmed from some widely
spread and deeply motivating ideology:
-Feudalism from Christianity,
-French, American and Russian Menshevik Revolution
from the First Enlightenment,
-Bolshevik and Maoist Gulags from Marxism corrupted
by Leninism and Engels' Dialectic,
-National Socialism from the Lebensraum ideology
of Mein Kampf,
-Israel from Zionism and Communism.

SP postulates that large scope DD can stem only from
the bedrock of the Second Enlightenment. But the
Second Enlightenment is still in the bud, restricted
to Physics and lacking the socio-political explication
capable to be spread amongst the people as a potential
support of DD.

Thus, the first critical task for WDDM or anybody striving
for DD consists of ontological, epistemological and
socio-political explication of the Second Enlightenment.
Once this step accomplished, one may start thinking about
spreading this knowledge amongst the people in understandable
and motivating way. Now, the first task, the Explication
seems well within the means and skills of WDDM in the manner
of a tough but most exciting challenge.

Explication of the Second Enlightenment
---------------------------------------
WDDM never lacked proficiency of editing long and highly
sophisticated texts. It's enough to recall hundreds of
produced Rules, Constitutions and other Manifestos.
It's true that none of them is in the least pertinent,
or practicable. However, it should not be imputed to
illiteracy or unintelligence of the authors, but to the
lack of context. Indeed, even the best writing is
meaningless in absence of a context.

Several WDDM members have demonstrated good writing and
speculating skills and it is permitted to hope that,
once standing on solid and adequate bedrock, they may
produce pertinent and practicable stuff.

We would not need, of course, any voting, nor raising
Explication of the Second Enlightenment to some
constitutional rule of WDDM. We would need just a few
people motivated by the challenge and ready to contribute
to it as an "Editing Committee" in a free, improvising
manner. We could invite people from other groups
concerned by the issue, such as CICDD and Epistemology.

Although the form of the Explication would be entirely
in the hands of the Editing Committee, I shall risk here
an anticipated suggestion: we could produce something
like a "Second Encyclopedia", a set of self contained
articles on author-chosen issues, individual and free
within the commonly accepted context of Second
Enlightenment's Ontology.

Once, if ever, this first task accomplished, we will
have to consider the problem of spreading its results
amongst the people.

*


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